1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 THE COUNCIL’S FIVE YEAR REQUIREMENT AND SUPPLY POSITION
3.0 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
4.0 ADOPTED AND EMERGING LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
5.0 HOUSING REQUIREMENT
6.0 FIVE YEAR LAND SUPPLY
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 – JOHNSON BROOK TEN YEAR TRAJECTORY
APPENDIX 2 – INSPECTOR’S LETTER RE CORE STRATEGY EXAMINATION 12TH MAY 2014
APPENDIX 3 – APPEAL DECISION APP/M1005/A/14/2226553, LAND AT ROES LANE, CRICH – 13TH JULY 2015
1
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Johnson Brook (JB) are instructed by to review the updated position on five year housing land supply (November 2015) published by Amber Valley (‘the Council’) in July 2015.
1.2 Our assessment (‘the Assessment’) provides a detailed commentary on all aspects of ‘the ‘statement’ in order to establish whether the Council’s five year land supply position is robust.
1.3 The Council have previously acknowledged a deliverable five year housing land supply cannot be demonstrated, indeed this was the case in a recent appeal decision at Roes Lane, Crich1 (13 July 2015) to which the appointed Inspector found that the housing land supply was somewhere between 35% and 65% of the requirement. In contrast, the Council’s recently adopted position on five year housing land supply details a supply of 5.15 years for the period 2015/16 to 2019/20.
1.4 The Council have not produced a detailed commentary on specific sites, however have produced a trajectory providing the Council’s anticipated timings and delivery rates for sites forming the five year housing land supply position. The Council have then reviewed the supply position moving towards the period ending 31st March 2016, detailing a supply of 6.39 years can be demonstrated. It is noted however that retains a base date of 1st April 2015 and is therefore a six year supply calculation. The Council have not produced a calculation for the five year housing land supply position 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2021.
1.5 Whilst no specific commentary has been offered by the Council, it is understood that the improved five year housing land supply position is principally a result of the inclusion of a number of additional sites within the trajectory, including strategic sites within the emerging Core Strategy and additional sites not forming part of previous reviews. The inclusion of additional sites has been acknowledged by the appointed Inspector for the Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy Examination in his letter dated 28th September 2015, noting:-
“The resumed hearings will need to carefully scrutinise the assumptions in the appendix and the list of further sites. After such a long period of suspension it would be a matter of clear concern if, upon resumption of the hearings, the Council were still to find itself unable to demonstrate a secure supply of deliverable sites to meet the 5-year requirement. I therefore trust that the Council will continue to give this matter very careful consideration, including any contingency measures which it could introduce into the plan if there continued to be any room for doubt about the adequacy of the supply.”
1 Appeal Ref: APP/M1005/A/14/2226553 – Land at Roes Lane, Crich – Decision Date 13 July 2015 2
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
2.0 THE COUNCIL’S FIVE YEAR REQUIREMENT AND SUPPLY POSITION
2.1 The Statement represents the Council’s full assessment of the five year housing land supply in the District for the period 1st April 2015 to 31st March 2020 together with a six year supply position 1st April 2015 to 31st March 2016.
2.2 The Council’s requirement calculation is formulated using an annual requirement of 575 dwellings multiplied across 5 years. The annual requirement was developed as part of the emerging Core Strategy through work carried out by GL Hearn on the Derby HMA. The position is set out below:-
Adjusted HMA Net Housing Contribution Total Need Need 2011 - Housing Housing Completions Provision Towards City 2008 - 2028 2028 Provision Figures 2008 – 2011 2011 - 2028 Needs 2011 - 2028 AVBC 8,209 814 7,395 10,874 10,060 2,665 Derby 17,901 1,513 16,388 12,500 10,987 10,987 SDDC 10,718 1,113 9,605 13,454 12,341 2,736 HMA 36,828 3,440 33,388 36,214 33,388 16,388
2.3 Applying the above adjusted housing provision produces an annual required of 592 dwellings per annum (dpa), however in a letter set out 26th March 20152 the Council now consider the housing need for the Derby HMA to be recalculated at 32,207 dwellings for the period 2011 – 2028. It is understood this has informed the Council’s annual requirement of 575 dpa.
2.4 A 20% buffer is added to the annual requirement based on past under deliver for the period 2011/12 to 2014/15 as set out within Table 1 below:-
Table 1 – AVBC Completions 2011/12 – 2014/15
Year Requirement Completions Shortfall
2011/12 575 206 -369 2012/13 575 219 -356 2013/14 575 269 -306 2014/15 575 271 -304 Total 2,300 965 -1,335
2 Letter to PINS – 26th March 2015, Amber Valley BC – Objectively Assessed Housing Need for the Derby Housing Marked Area (HMA) 3
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
2.5 The Council’s stated 5 year requirement is summarised in Table 2 below. This table is presented as Table 2 within the Council’s recently adopted position.
Table 2 – AVBC – 5 Year Requirement
Rolling Five-Year Housing Requirement Units
Target Provision 2011 – 2028 9,770 Required Provision 2015/16 – 2019/20 Five year basic annual average 2,875 Deficit 2011/12 – 2014/15 1.335 20% buffer for under provision 575 20% buffer on shortfall 267 Overall requirement 5,052 Residual annual requirement 1,010
2.6 The table also provides a summary of the required provision for the period 2015/16 to 2020/21, covering a period of six years. It is noted that this table also accounts for an undersupply of 1,335 dwellings and therefore does not consider any anticipated shortfall within the current period 1st April 2015 to 31st March 2016.
2.7 The Council’s current five year supply position is summarised in Table 3, this Table is replicated in Table 3 of the Council’s updated five year land supply position (November 2015). The table includes a number of sources of supply together with a five year windfall allowance in lieu of a specific list of identified smaller sites.
Table 3 – AVBC – Sources of Supply
Source of supply Units
Adopted Local Plan sites with planning permission 1,321 Large brownfield sites with planning permission 860 Large greenfield sites with planning permission 661 Small brownfield sites (windfall allowance of 57 dpa) 285 Sites with resolution to grant subject to S106 agreement 414 Adopted Local Plan allocations without planning permission 73 Core Strategy sites without planning permission 431 Additional Core Strategy sites 942 Additional sites (Local Plan Part 2 or Neighbourhood Plans) 213 Total Supply 5,200
4
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
2.8 In accordance with Table 3, the Council consider 5,200 dwellings are deemed to be deliverable over the next five years. The supply makes no provision for any form of slippage rate for sites yet to commence works and/or without planning permissions.
2.9 The Council’s current position is summarised in Table 4 below.
Table 4 – AVBC – Five Year Supply and Requirement
Five Year Supply Units Total Supply 5,200 Rolling Five Year Requirement 2015-2020 5,052
2.10 This represents a total of 5.15 years’ worth of housing land supply against an identified housing target of 5,052 dwellings over the next five years. A calculation is also provided by the Council based on a six year requirement for the period 1st April 2015 to 31st March 2021. The Council consider this would equate to a supply of 6.39 years. As previously noted, this figure does not include any anticipated shortfall for the current period 1st April 2015 to 31st March 2016.
2.11 As set out within the supply calculations at Appendix 1, Johnson Brook have assessed the Council’s anticipated delivery for Year 2015/16 (263 dwellings + 57 windfall = 320 dwellings) together with the Council’s anticipated delivery in Year 2020/21 (733 dwellings + 57 windfall = 790 dwellings).
2.12 This would result in a shortfall for the period 2015/16 of 255 dwellings against the Council’s requirement of 575 d/pa and therefore a total shortfall of 1,590 since 2011. The Council estimate a total of 5,670 dwellings can be delivered for the period 2016/17 to 2020/21 which against an adjusted requirement of 1,072 d/pa (accounting for projected 2015/16 completions) produces a supply of 5.29 years. This figure is not made clear within the Council’s published material given the authority has instead detailed its position across six years.
2.13 JB do not agree with the Council’s interpretation of the current five year requirement or their five year land supply position.
2.14 Johnson Brook have strong concerns regarding the deliverable sources of supply the Council forecast over the five year period, specifically with regards to the timing and delivery of strategic allocations which are yet to attain planning permissions.
5
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
3.0 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework)
3.1 The Framework was published 27 March 2012 and sets out the Government’s economic, environmental and planning policies for England. The Framework carries forward the Government’s commitment to support sustainable economic growth and states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic recovery through the planning system and this includes building houses.
3.2 Paragraph 14 of the Framework sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-taking this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay and, where relevant policies are absent, silent or 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 the Framework taken as a whole.
3.3 The relevant housing policies of the Framework state that:-
The overriding housing objective of the NPPF is “to boost significantly the supply of housing.” (Paragraph 47);
To achieve the above, Local Authorities should:
o Ensure the “full, objectively assessed housing needs” are met; o Identify a “supply of specific deliverable sites to provide five years’ worth of housing against their requirement”; o Include an additional buffer of 5% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land, or “where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20%.”
3.4 Two recent appeal decisions in Daventry District Council; Weedon3 and Moulton4, supports the view that a 5 year supply should not be seen as a bar to prevent more housing approvals, if the adverse impacts of the development do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. These decisions also highlight the importance of councils maintaining a rolling 5 year housing land supply through the use of their trajectories.
3 Appeal Ref: APP/Y2810/A/14/2228921 – New Street, Weedon Bec, Northamptonshire - §86 4 Appeal Ref: APP/Y2810/A/14/2225722 – Salisbury Landscapes Ltd, Broughton Road, Moulton - §74 & §81 6
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
3.5 These decisions reinforce the need for close analysis of not just the 5 year housing land supply but also the forward trajectory to ensure that the supply is capable of being maintained over a longer period.
3.6 Should a local planning authority not be able to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites then the Framework5 provides for housing applications to:-
“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.”
National Planning Practice Guidance (the Guidance)
3.7 The PPG was published as a live ‘working’ document on 6th March 2014. It extends to over 600 pages and is intended to replace over 7,000 pages of now revoked guidance. The document is frequently updated as new guidance becomes available.
3.8 With respect to the assessment of a 5 year housing land supply, the PPG adds a little more interpretation than that included in the 2012 Framework Paragraph 47 Footnote 11. It also provides additional guidance regarding the selection of sites in the Plan Making process.
3.9 The guidance re-iterates the requirements of the Framework, confirming the supply is a rolling figure which should be updated annually and notes that demonstrating a five year supply is central to maintaining a position where relevant policies for the supply of housing are up to date.
3.10 The document contains guidance on calculating the requirement, the application of a 5% or 20% buffer and also advocates dealing with any undersupply within the first five years. The guidance also notes that allocated and emerging sites can be included within the supply, however an allocation is not a prerequisite for a site being deliverable and LPAs should provide relevant up to date evidence to support assumptions made on deliverability of such sites.
5 Framework - §49 7
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
4.0 ADOPTED AND EMERGING DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the statutory development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
4.2 The adopted Local Plan is currently made up of the saved policies contained within the Amber Valley Local Plan adopted 12th April 2006.
Amber Valley Borough Council Local Plan 2006
4.3 Policies relevant for the supply of housing are:-
Policy LS1 – Provides six sustainability criteria for the location of new development;
Policy H5 – Seeks protection of housing development outside of the settlement limits
Policy EN1 – Sets out criteria for protection of the countryside
4.4 It is noted that Policies H5 and EN1 are now considered out of date for the purposes of paragraph 14 of the Framework.
Emerging Amber Valley Borough Council Core Strategy
4.5 The emerging Core Strategy (2008 – 2028) has been undergoing its Examination in Public (EIP). The examination was suspended in 2014 due to a number of concerns set out by the Inspector, largely with regards to the plans ability to demonstrate a secure five year housing land supply.
4.6 In his letter to the Council dated 12th May 20146, the Inspector stated:-
“…I have serious concern that the plan does not provide a secure 5-year housing land supply and is not consistent with national policy in that respect”.
4.7 The Inspector then concludes:-
“From the nature of the evidence which was available it is difficult to assess precisely how fare the stock of truly deliverable housing land falls short of the interim 5-year requirement referred to above. However, I am in no doubt that the Council is currently unable to demonstrate the existence of a secure deliverable
6 Letter to Amber Valley BC – 12th May 2014, Examination of the Amber Valley Local Plan Part 1 – The Core Strategy, Inspector Roy Foster MA MRTPI 8
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
5-year supply: on present evidence that supply appears to be somewhere in the region of 3,000.
…the evidence base for the 5-year supply needs to be realistic, transparent and unambiguous. Reliance should not be placed upon sites which (in all the circumstances) are unlikely to meet the requirement of the NPPF for a ‘realistic prospect’ of delivery. Other advice on availability is included in Planning Practice Guidance paras 3-020/023. The Council will therefore need to adopt a carefully informed and critical approach to the inclusion of individual sites within the supply, avoiding insufficiently founded assumptions or undue optimism. It would also be prudent not to adopt too minimalist an approach to the new allocations since the significant boost to supply sought by the NPPF (and a secure 5-year supply) is probably more achievable by allocating a larger number of suitable sites at a greater variety of locations rather than placing too much reliance on a smaller number of sites at fewer locations.”
4.8 Following the Council’s recently adopted position on five year housing land supply, examination of the plan is set to resume in December 2015.
9
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
5.0 HOUSING REQUIREMENT
5.1 The draft Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) was previously informed by work carried out by GL Hearn on the Derby HMA, which informed a requirement for the Derby HMA of 33,338 dwellings for the period 2011 to 2028, 10,874 dwellings of which are distributed to Amber Valley. The Council have recently re considered this position, and now consider a figure of 32,207 to represent the housing need for the Derby HMA.
5.2 Whilst Johnson Brook have not carried out an independent review of housing need for the Derby HMA, in the absence of an adopted housing requirement we have considered a figure of 33,388 dwellings for the Derby HMA as appropriate resulting in an annual requirement for Amber Valley of 592 d/pa. Our thoughts are supported by a recent appeal decision dated 13th July 2015 at Roes Lane, Crich7 to which the Inspector noted:-
“The Housing Market Area (HMA) for the purposes of the emerging Core Strategy covers Derby and South Derbyshire as well as Amber Valley. The Local Plan Inspector has said that the housing requirement of 33,388 for the HMA should be maintained as the objectively assessed need (OAN) as it provides “appropriate margins of comfort” over the 32,207 requirement that was more recently calculated. This leads to a figure of 592 dwellings per annum (dpa) for Amber Valley – 2,960 over five years”.
5.3 Johnson Brook also note the recent comments of the Home Builders Federation as set out within their letter dated 4th September 20158 in response to the proposed changes to the Core Strategy consultation, stating:-
“33,388 dwellings is considered to be an overly pessimistic OAHN which will not significantly boost housing supply across the Derby HMA over the next 13 years as required by paragraph 47 of the NPPF. As set out in previous representations the HBF’s opinion is that the Council’s OAHN gives insufficient consideration to household formation rates, employment forecasts, upward adjustments for market signals and the provision of affordable housing.”
7 Appeal Ref: APP/M1005/A/14/2226553 – Land at Roes Lane, Crich – Decision Date 13 July 2015 8 Home Builders Federation – Letter to Amber Valley BC, Re: Amber Valley Further Proposed Changes to Core Strategy Consultation – Dated 4th September 2015 10
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
Backlog
5.4 To establish the housing requirement any under-delivery (backlog) and a 5% or 20% buffer should be applied to the FOAN as required by the Framework9.
5.5 The backlog has been calculated by the Council for the period 2011/12 to 2014/15 (four years). The Council have calculated the backlog using the annual requirement of 575 d/pa which equates to a shortfall of 1,335 dwellings. The backlog has been applied using the Sedgefield Method.
5.6 The backlog using a requirement of 592 d/pa as suggested by the Inspector and as accepted in a recent appeal decision at Roes Lane, Crich, is 1,403 dwellings.
5.7 Johnson Brook have produced a ten year housing supply trajectory included at Appendix 1 of this report, the report considers the supply over the period 2014/15 to 2024/25. Based on our understanding of the sites forming the housing trajectory and their position & planning status, we estimate 305 dwellings can be completed for the current period 1st April 2015 to 31st March 2016 (248 dwellings from identified sources + 57 windfalls). Using the figure of 592 d/pa this results in a shortfall for Year 2015/16 of 287 dwellings.
5.8 Whilst it is acknowledged this figure to be speculative, in the absence of any publication from the authority on delivery to date JB have utilised this figure to run a supply calculation in Section 6 of this report. It is understood from conversations with the authority that data on completions is only produced once per year.
20% Buffer
5.9 The Council accept that a 20% buffer is applicable given the persistent under delivery over the last four years.
Application of the 5% or 20% Buffer
5.10 There has now been a number of recent appeal decisions which apply the buffer to the requirement and backlog. Between 3 June 2015 and 8 July 2015 the following Appeals have been identified where, in each case, the buffer is added to the requirement and backlog:-
Chard – Appeal Ref: APP/R3325/A/13/2209680 (Paragraph 42) (3 June 2015); Witchford – Appeal Ref: APP/V0510/A/14/2224671 (Paragraph 49) (23 June 2015);
9 Framework - §47 11
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
Langford – Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/A/14/2228154 (Paragraph 16) (29 June 2015); and, Spencers Wood – Appeal Ref: APP/X0360/A/13/2209286 (Paragraph 52) (8 July 2015).
5.11 This is the correct application of the buffer, the Council has accepted this position within its recently adopted housing land supply position.
Overall Housing Requirement
5.12 Applying the figure of 592 d/pa, Johnson Brook therefore consider the requirement for the five year period 2015/16 to 2019/20 to be as follows:-
[5yrs x 592 d/pa = 2,960] + [backlog = 1,403] + [20% buffer] = 5,236 dwellings/5 = 1,047 d/pa
5.13 Applying the anticipated shortfall of 287 dwellings for the period 2015/16 as detailed in para 5.7, the housing requirement for the period 2016/17 to 2020/21 is considered as follows:-
[5yrs x 592 d/pa = 2,960] + [backlog = 1,690] + [20% buffer] = 5,580 dwellings/5 = 1,116 d/pa
12
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
6.0 FIVE YEAR LAND SUPPLY
6.1 This assessment of the Council’s current five-year supply has been carried out by JB utilising the deliverability criteria as set out in Footnote 1110 and 1211 of the Framework. Consideration is also had to the provisions of the Framework and Guidance. This assessment has been undertaken on a site by site basis and the detailed assessments of all sites can be found at Appendices 1 & 2.
6.2 The Amber Valley Five Year Land Supply is derived from the following sources:-
Adopted Local Plan site with planning permission Large brownfield sites with planning permission Large greenfield sites with planning permission Small brownfield sites (windfall estimate) Sites with resolution to grant planning permission subject to S106 Adopted Local Plan allocations without planning permission Core Strategy sites without planning permission Additional Core Strategy sites Additional sites (Local Plan Part 2 or Neighbourhood Plans)
6.3 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 five years.
6.4 However, planning permission or allocation in a development plan is not a prerequisite for a site being deliverable in terms of the five-year supply.
6.5 The Council needs 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.
6.6 If there are no significant constraints (e.g. infrastructure) to overcome, sites not allocated within a development plan or without planning permission can be considered capable of being delivered within a five-year timeframe.
10 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 and in particular that development on of the site is viable. 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, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans. 11 To be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged. 13
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
6.7 The size of sites is also an important factor in identifying whether a housing site is deliverable within the first 5 years. Full consideration should be given to the time it will take to commence development on site and build out rates to ensure a robust five-year housing supply.
6.8 It is common practice to include a lapse rate for the non-implementation of planning permissions and slippages. A lapse rate will be applied where appropriate to each source of supply.
Delivery Assumptions
6.9 JB hold concerns with the assumptions of the Council, set out in the HLS, in relation to lead-in times and rates of delivery. These factors have the propensity to overstate the likely delivery within the 5 year period.
Lead-in Times
6.10 JB consider that the Council’s lead-in times under estimate the inherent delays in the planning process (e.g. the approval of reserved matters and discharge of planning conditions) as well as the time taken to implement development (e.g. marketing land and completing land purchase; preparing detailed designs for infrastructure; mobilising statutory utilities; and, commencing development), particularly for larger sites. As such, JB consider they are not: (a) reliable; (b) do not accurately reflect the time taken for the majority of sites to start delivering; and, (c) consequently not appropriate for use as a standard in calculating a 5 year land supply position.
6.11 No commentary has been provided by the LPA to support the assumptions on delivery for each of the sites forming the trajectory. It is therefore assumed that either delivery rates are based upon previous completion rates, developer correspondence and/or the Council’s general assumptions on each of the sites.
6.12 It is additionally noted the Council have not applied a lapse rate to sites without planning permission to account for any slippage, and have assumed that all sites will come forward. A 10% lapse rate is widely acknowledged as a reasonable adjustment including by Inspectors in a number of appeal decisions including the Honeybourne12 and Marston Green13 appeals. Although a question of planning judgement the 10% lapse rate was also found to be reasonable to both the small and large sites, by the High Court in the Costswold judgement14. At paragraph 71 the judgement states:
12 Appendix 8 - Appeal Reference: APP/H1840/A/12/2171339 – Land between Station Road and Dudley Road, Honeybourne, Worcestershire 13 Appeal Reference: AAP/Q4625/A/11/21575515 – Land known as Moat House Farm, Elmdon Road, Marston Green 14 Appendix 10 - High Court Judgement: [2013] EWHC 3719 (Admin) – Cotswold District Council v Secretary of State. 14
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
“The inspector inferred that a lapse rate would apply in relation to the large sites too. In the absence of other evidence, she concluded that the application of a 10% lapse rate was reasonable.”
6.13 Tables 5 & 6 below set out what JB consider to be the likely lead-in times for the delivery of sites with outline and full permissions. These lead-in times do not take account of any issues associated with the marketing of a site where the application is made by a landowner. If marketing is taken into account the lead in times could be extended by a further 6 to 12 months. For larger sites where infrastructure development is more extensive, the site preparation periods would be significantly higher than set out below.
Table 5 – Lead-in Times for Sites with Outline Permission
Time (in months)
Prep. of Consider Prep. of First Total Key Stages S.106 Applic. Applic. Site Comp. time
Outline Application 3 4 3 10 Reserved Matters and 3 4 7 Discharge Pre- Commencement Conditions Site Commencement 5 6 11
Overall Time from 28 Preparation to Start of Completions
Table 6 - Lead-in Times for Sites with Detailed Planning Permission
Time (in months)
Prep. of Consider Prep. of First Total Key Stages S.106 Applic. Applic. Site Comp. time
Full Application 3 4 3 10
Discharge Pre- 2 2 4 Commencement Conditions Site Commencement 5 6 11
Overall Time from 25 Preparation to Start of Completions
15
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
6.14 These lead-in times are based on Johnson Brook’s experience in delivering major sites and discussions with the major housebuilders operating in the region.
6.15 With regards to larger strategic allocations, JB refer to a Savills report on the assessment of delivery rates on large urban extensions sites (October 2014). The Savills report found where an outline application has been submitted prior to 2010, the lead in time between submission of an application and the delivery of dwellings was 4.3 years and this reduced to 2.8 years when considering sites submitted post 2010.
6.16 Graph 1 below depicts likely lead in times for the delivery of units on site from submission of an outline and through reserved matters application to start on site. In the case of the Urban Extension, the majority of sites are anticipated to obtain a wider outline permission in the first instance, with delivery of units phased over time.
Graph 1: Lead in times for sites progressing via an outline planning application (months)
6.17 The findings of the Savills report were referred to in a recent Appeal Decision15 in which the Inspector states:-
“Evidence was produced to this inquiry in the form of a report prepared by Savills on the performance of SUEs. The report is based upon a review of performance on SUEs across the country, rather than the East Midlands, but I regard it as
15 APP/H2835/A/14/2227520 – Easton Lane, Bozeat, Wellingborough - §16 16
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
reliable, albeit generalised, evidence on how such sites have performed and what may be expected in terms of delivery”
6.18 JB accept that there may be cases where the timescales set out in the above tables/graphs could be marginally reduced. However, when assessing a 5 year supply position it is important to be cautious in relation to the likelihood of sites delivering and the scale of that delivery. This is because the purpose of the assessment is to provide a realistic view of whether there is sufficient land available to meet the community’s need for housing. If those needs are to be met a cautious approach must be taken. These assumptions have therefore been taken in considering the 5 year land supply position.
Delivery Rates
6.19 JB consider the Council has not justified or consistently applied delivery rates set out in the trajectory. In particular, consideration needs to be given to: (a) the general rate of completions, based on current market conditions; (b) the scale of infrastructure provision and its timing; and, (c) the impact of a number of sites in close proximity (which can slow delivery rates due to competition).
6.20 Based on our knowledge of the house building sector and from the information provided by the development industry, JB consider the appropriate approach to take in respect to the build rate assumptions is:
A standard build rate of 15dpa for sites less than 50 dwellings. It is acknowledged that certain smaller sites of between 5-20 dwellings may incur mixed completion rates depending on the nature of the scheme and the end developer.
A standard build rate of 30dpa for sites of 50 – 199 dwellings. This is based on the HBF average of 0.5 sales per site per week (i.e. 26 dpa). It is based on these sites being built out by a single developer or with a single outlet.
A standard build rate of 50dpa for sites of 200 – 499 dwellings. This assumes the site will be built out by 2 developers or with outlets unless there is clear evidence that a particular site of this size is being developed out by a single developer (in which case a rate of 30 dpa is appropriate).
Large sites, with a capacity of 500+ dwellings, can achieve higher build rates (i.e. in excess of 50dpa), based on more than 2 developers or outlets. The rate for these large 17
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
sites will be dependent on the number of developers/outlets and the scale of infrastructure provision. However, it is appreciated that a rate of 75dpa should be achieved in most cases.
6.21 JB also wish to note that it is overly simplistic to apply a direct multiplier to the number of developers on a site as there will inevitably be some overlap and competition between the developers, even if they serve slightly different markets. In addition, consideration must be given to the potential for competition between sites in close proximity.
Sources of Supply
6.22 Johnson Brook have considered each of the Council’s nine sources of supply below, a detailed trajectory is included at Appendix 1 together with notes on disputed sites. The majority of disputes on the Council’s figures concern lead in times for first completions together with anticipated delivery rates. As previously noted, the Council have not provided a supporting report or commentary on each of the sites therefore Johnson Brook have undertaken a review based upon the planning status of each site, knowledge of the residential market and the presence of a known developer/house builder.
6.23 Further to our review of the Council’s trajectory, Johnson Brook raise a number of concerns with the figures projected by the Council, which are detailed below. This does not form a comprehensive list of disagreements with the Council’s figures however seeks to highlight a number of concerns with the numbers projected. Further information can be found within JB’s supply trajectory included at Appendix 1.
Outline Planning Applications
6.24 Johnson Brook hold concerns over the Council’s anticipated timeframes for delivering completions on a number of sites subject only to outline planning permission. As identified within Table 5, Johnson Brook note that from achieving an outline planning permission a lead in time of anywhere 18 months and beyond should be considered for delivery of first units on site. At the time of writing this report, JB are unaware of any reserved matters submissions for each of the sites identified within Table 7 below.
18
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
Table 7 – Outline application projected to deliver in Year 2016/17 (Council’s figures)
Site Address 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20
Outseats Farm, Alfreton 0 40 40 40 40 Land at Coppice Farm, off Peasehill Road, 0 40 40 40 40 Ripley Land off Heanor Road, Smalley, Heanor 0 20 30 30 21 Roes Lane, Crich 0 15 32 32 34 Loscoe Miners Welfare, Loscoe 0 34 34 0 0 Newlands/Taylor Lane, Heanor 0 20 60 60 60 Lily Street Farm, Swanwick 8 43 75 75 75 Asher Lane (North), Ripley 0 10 20 20 30
6.25 JB have considered completions to commence from mid Year 2017/18 for the majority of sites detailed within the table above.
Lapsed Permissions
6.26 JB note that a number of applications included within the Council’s trajectory have expired and therefore should not be included as a deliverable source of supply. These include:-
AVA/2011/0562 – QES, Butterly Hill, Ripley – Application expired 28th July 2014 – 14 dwellings
AVA/2010/0600 – Leabrooks Club, Greenhill Lane, Leabrooks – Application expired 22nd August 2014 – 50 dwellings
AVA/2005/1268 – Land adjacent 130 Station Road, Langley Mill – Application expired 9th July 2015 – 87 dwellings
Total 151 dwellings
6.27 In addition to the above, the following sites which are nearing their expiry are questioned given their history and market position:-
AVA/2012/0994 – Heanor Haulage, Wesley Street, Langley Mill – Application expires 17th January 2016 – The most recent application has time extended the decision until January 2016, resulting in over six years with an outline planning approval attached to the site. There is no known developer interest and JB highly question the inclusion of the site within a five year land supply assessment without further evidence to justify its inclusion.
19
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
AVA/2012/0346 – Stevensons Amber Dye Works, Bullbridge Hill, Ambergate – Application expires 4th April 2016 and has been submitted by JG Ambergate LLP who have since gone into administration. The present status of the company is unknown and JB are not aware of any further application submissions or developer interest. JB therefore question the inclusion of the site within a five year land supply assessment without further evidence to justify its inclusion.
Local Plan/Core Strategy Allocations
6.28 The Council have projected the delivery of dwellings from a number of sites which are either remaining Local Plan allocations or strategic sites within the emerging Core Strategy. These are broken down into three categories within the Council’s five year housing land supply trajectory and are considered by the Council to deliver the following number of units over the period 2016/17 to 2020/21:-
Local Plan Allocations – without planning permission – 73 dwellings
Strategic Sites in Submitted Core Strategy 2013 – without planning permission – 638 dwellings
Strategic Sites in Further Proposed Changes 2014/Revisions 2015 to Submitted Core Strategy – without planning permission – 1,143 dwellings
6.29 JB hold significant concern over the lead in times and rates of delivery projected by the Council from these sources of supply. A summary of the position for each of the authority’s 11 allocations is detailed in Table 8 below.
20
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
Table 8 – Local Plan/Core Strategy sites without Planning Permission
Amber Valley BC Projected Developer Site Address Planning Status Delivery 2016/17 to 2020/21 (Y/N)
Derby Road, Duffield No application 39 dwellings No Plumptree Road, Langley Mill No application 20 dwellings No Gregg Avenue, Heanor Full application 14 dwellings Yes – Chevin AVA/2015/0819 – pending Homes determination Land north of Denby, Denby No application (application 378 dwellings No submitted for smaller parcel of land – 120 dwellings) Newlands/Taylor Lane, Heanor Outline application 260 dwellings No – App AVA/2014/0999 – pending made by determination Omnivale Ltd Radbourne Lane, Derby No application 90 dwellings No Somercotes Hill, Alfreton No application 140 dwellings No Chesterfield Road, Alfreton No application 255 dwellings Pursued by Taylor Wimpey Lily Street Farm, Swanwick Outline application 343 dwellings No – App AVA/2014/1154 – pending made by determination Peveril Securities Ltd Hall Road, Langley Mill No application 80 dwellings No Asher Lane (North), Ripley AVA/2013/0891 – pending 80 dwellings No – app determination made by City Capital Investments Asher Lane (South), Ripley No application 65 dwellings No Butterly Hall, Ripley No application 90 dwellings No Total 1,854 dwellings
6.30 As demonstrated in the table above, only four of the thirteen sites falling within these three categories benefit from a pending planning application, each of which are outline permissions and will therefore require further detailed submissions.
6.31 In addition to the above, it is understood that 11 of the 13 sites do not currently have a known house builder / developer attached to the site, with the majority of sites with pending planning applications being pursued by strategic land companies.
6.32 The Council’s housing trajectory anticipates five of the thirteen sites delivering units in Year 2016/17 and nine of the thirteen sites delivering units in Year 2017/18. Having regard to 21
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
associated lead in times to cover preparation, submission & determination of all applications, negotiation of S106 agreements, discharge of conditions and initial works on site (not accounting for specific infrastructure requirements) Johnson Brook consider such timings wholly unrealistic.
6.33 As an example, site SG12 at Lily Street Farm, Swanwick has a pending outline application for 600 dwellings yet to be determined. The Council have projected 8 dwellings to be delivered from this site by 31st March 2016 with 40 dwellings delivered during the period 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2020. Clearly these figures are unachievable considering outline permission has yet to be established.
6.34 Johnson Brook have carefully considered each of the sites falling within Table 8 and consider 1,064 dwellings can be delivered during the period 2016/17 to 2020/21. Our assumptions have taken a realistic approach to associated lead in times for first completions based upon the lead in times and application of delivery rates as set out within this report.
6.35 It is additionally noted that three of the thirteen sites would classify as major Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUEs), that being sites with a capacity of greater than 500 dwellings. The delivery of such sites are not without their difficulties, largely due to the burden of high cost infrastructure requirements which both delay lead in times for first completions and in many cases result in significant viability issues that are subject to protracted Section 106 negotiations. Johnson Brook have considered each of the three sites in question capable of delivering units within the five year period however it is anticipated in most cases first completions should be expected later in the five year period.
Total Supply
6.36 As informed by the ten year trajectory detailed at Appendix 1, JB dispute numbers to be delivered from a number of sites forming the Council’s trajectory. As discussed within this report, we have considered disputes surrounding lead in times, delivery times and expired planning permissions.
6.37 We find that having considered each source of supply and the sites contained within, our adjusted ten year housing trajectory attached at Appendix 1 informs the following anticipated delivery for the period 2015/16 to 2019/20 and 2016/17 to 2020/21.
2015/16 to 2019/20 – 3,547 dwellings (identified sites) + 285 windfalls = 3,832 dwellings
2016/17 to 2020/21 – 4,083 dwellings (identified sites) + 285 windfalls = 4,368 dwellings
22
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
6.38 Having regard to the above and our consideration of the requirement set out in Section 5 of this report, our calculation of the five year housing land supply for each of the above periods is set out below. Johnson Brook note that we would currently consider the period 2016/17 to 2020/21 as the best estimation of the Council’s current housing land supply position given the timings of this report being closer to a 1st April 2016 base date. Our thoughts are echoed by the Inspector reaching a decision on a recent appeal at Easton Lane, Bozeat, Wellingborough16, noting:-
“In my experience, the starting point for an assessment is taken to be the April of the year which is closest to the point of the challenge.”
Johnson Brook Five Year Housing Land Supply Calculation
2015/16 to 2019/20
6.39 3,832 projected supply / 1,047 adjusted annual requirement = 3.66 Years
2016/17 to 2019/20
6.40 4,368 projected supply / 1,116 adjusted annual requirement = 3.91 Years
6.41 Johnson Brook are therefore of the opinion the Council is not able to identify a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing in any of the scenarios above.
16 Appeal Ref: APP/H2835/A/14/2227520 – Easton Lane, Bozeat, Wellingborough - §13 23
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 The draft Part 1 Core Strategy has been subject to EiP and interim comments from the Inspector have raised significant concerns over the plans ability to demonstrate a deliverable five year housing land supply. JB have carried out an extensive review of sites forming the Council’s housing trajectory and have raised significant concern over the delivery and lead in times forecast by the Council on a number of sites.
7.2 We have considered the five year housing land supply position for the current and future period and have found the Council’s supply to currently be in the region of 3.66 years for the period 2015/16 to 2019/20 and around 3.91 years for the period 2016/17 to 2020/21.
7.3 Our findings are consistent with a recent appeal decision at land at Roes Lane, Crich (Ref APP/M1005/A/14/2226553) to which the Inspector concluded:-
“Thus, whichever view is taken of housing land availability, it falls considerably short of a 5-year supply. If one then looks to see how quickly the shortfall might be rectified, the signs are not encouraging. There is no indication of when exactly the Council will publish housing land supply figures or if, when it does, they will not be subject of significant objection.”
7.4 With the plan yet to be adopted, it is further unclear on the specific OAN to be distributed to Amber Valley, we note representations have been made to the plan by the HBF questioning the housing need across the Derby HMA and whether the requirement 33,388 dwellings will significantly boost housing supply over the next years as required by paragraph 47 of the NPPF.
7.5 JB acknowledge that the supply position moving forward in Amber Valley will gradually improve in later years given the authority has sought to allocate a number of strategic sites within the emerging plan for development of future homes. As demonstrated within this report however, the Council’s anticipated lead in times for completions are considered overly optimistic. Lead in times will only be subject to further delays should permissions not be issued in a timely manner and should infrastructure/viability issues not result in protracted Section 106 negotiations on strategic large scale sites.
7.6 We conclude that taking account of the current status of the Part 1 Core Strategy together with the assessment of supply detailed within this report, the Council cannot presently demonstrate a five year deliverable supply of housing and therefore the Council’s relevant policies for the supply of housing cannot be considered up to date in accordance with paragraph 49 of the Framework.
24
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
APPENDIX 1 – JOHNSON BROOK TEN YEAR TRAJECTORY
25
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
Amber Valley Housing Supply 01/12/2015 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2021
Allocated Sites With Planning Permission Application Remaining Johnson Brook Ten Year Supply 2015/16 to 2024/25 JB Total Site Address Town Application Type Johnson Brook Notes Reference Capacity 2016‐21 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Lowes Hill Ripley AVA/2011/0340 Reserved Matters 909000000009 Phase 1 Greenhillocks Ripley AVA/2012/0634 Full 14 0 14 0000000014Langridge Homes Ltd Phase 2 Greenhillocks Ripley AVA/2012/0751 Reserved Matters 20 0 15 5000000020Langridge Homes Ltd Phase 3 Greenhillocks Ripley AVA/2008/0366 Reserved Matters 79 0 0 15 30 30 4000079Langridge Homes Ltd Phase 4 Greenhillocks Ripley AVA/2008/1095 Reserved Matters 43 0 0 15 15 13 0000043Langridge Homes Ltd Residue, Greenhillocks Ripley AVA/2012/0063 Full 12 0 0 12 000000012 Home Farm, Coach Road Ripley AVA/2005/1451 Reserved Matters 31 0 15 15 100000031 Douglas Avenue Heanor AVA/2013/0449 Reserved Matters 35 15 15 5000000020
Reserved matters approved for 530 homes. Both Land at Radbourne Lane Mackworth AVA/2012/0617 Reserved Matters 522 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 250 Miller Homes and Radleigh Homes developing the site. William Davis site ‐ Permission granted for 83 Adale Road, Smalley Heanor AVA/2011/0075 Full 56 30 26 0000000026dwellings. Greenhill Lane Leabrooks AVA/2013/0778 Full 27 15 12 0000000012Langridge Homes Ltd Application now submitted and pending under AVA/2015/0977 ‐ Wheeldon Homes. Designation of village green has reduced land take to 317 dwellings. Rate of 50 d/pa applied however noted this may not be achieved should only one developer operate from Outseats Farm Alfreton AVA/2012/0084 Outline 500 0 0 30 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 180 the site. AVA/2012/0361, Detailed application now pending determination Land at Coppice Farm, off Peasehill Road Ripley AVA/2015/0535 Outline 360 0 0 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 140 under AVA/2015/0535 ‐ Hallam Land. Wheeldon Homes site with full permission now Hands Road Heanor AVA/2014/0044 Full 100 10 30 30 30 00000090granted.
Clowes Developments Ltd ‐ application approved April Millford Mills Millford AVA/2006/0297 Full 69 0 30 30 9000000692015 with delivery anticipated year 2016/17 Application submitted by Middlebrook Transport approved April 2013. No reserved matters application Middlebrook Transport, Meadow Lane Alfreton AVA/2011/0620 Outline 50 0 0 0 30 20 0000050submitted. William Davis site approved May 2014. Site currently being marketed by Brown & Co. Delivery reflects Cromford Road Langley Mill AVA/2013/0481 Full 59 0 0 10 30 19 0000059market position of the site. Bridge Waste Disposal, 66 Main Road Pye Bridge AVA/2014/0026 Outline 17 0 0 17 000000017 Totals 2003 120 216 269 280 217 139 135 135 135 135 1121
Large Brownfield Sites With Planning Permission Application Remaining Johnson Brook Ten Year Supply 2015/16 to 2024/25 JB Total Site Address Town Application Type Johnson Brook Notes Reference Capacity 2016‐21 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25
JB question the inclusion of this site, 14 dwellings were approved, no date is provided for date of Spring Road Riddings AVA/2004/0043 Full 550000000000approval however application made in 2004. Application expired and should be removed from the QES Butterly Hill Ripley AVA/2011/0562 Outline 14 00000000000trajectory. Evans Concrete, Peasehill Road Ripley AVA/2014/0623 Reserved Matters 60 25 30 15 000000045Strata Homes site approved October 2014. Application made by land owner to extend time period for determination. Permission expires January 2016 with no known developer interest. JB highly question the inclusion of this within a five year supply assessment considering the site has had a permission for six years with no further interest. JB remove this site unless there is substantial evidence to Heanor Haulage, Wesley St Langley Mill AVA/2012/0994 Outline 60 00000000000demonstrate delivery. 47 Cromford Road Langley Mill AVA/2011/0605 Full 12 10 2000000002 This application has expired and should be removed Leabrooks Club, Greenhill Lane Leabrooks AVA/2010/0600 Outline 50 00000000000from the trajectory.
Outline application submitted on behalf of landowner approved July 2012. This application has expired and Land adjacent 130 Station Road Langley Mill AVA/2005/1268 Outline 87 00000000000should be removed from the trajectory Newlands Drive Riddings AVA/2014/0480 Reserved Matters 21 5 10 6000000016
Site currently being marketed with outline permission which expires November 2016. Assumed capable of delivery subject to sale of land however requires Parkside Close Ironville AVA/2013/0129 Outline 59 0 0 30 29 00000059monitoring given lack of market interest to date.
Application made by JG Ambergate LLP (now in administration). Expires April 2016 ‐ no reserved matters or known developer interest. JB do not consider this site should form part of the trajectory Stevensons Amber Dye Works, Bullbridge Hill Ambergate AVA/2012/0346 Outline 171 00000000000until evidence can demonstrate otherwise. 2nd Floor, Jubilee House, Nottingham Road Ripley AVA/2013/0616 Full 14 59000000009 Rifle Volunteers, 36 Birchwood Lane Somercotes AVA/2013/1074 Full 12 57000000007 101 Derby Road Duffield AVA/2014/0382 Full 12 0 0 12 000000012
Approved January 2014 as an extension to the time period of an existing permission. Considered deliverable however question marks surround the site 1 Eastview Terrace Langley Mill AVA/2013/0409 Outline 40 0 0 20 20 00000040coming forward given the lack of market interest. Application now approved under AVA/2015/0077 to Rear of Butchers Arms, Hands Road Heanor AVA/2011/1017 Outline 10 0 0 0 10 00000010extend the life of the permission. No known developer interest however benefits from Chris W Roads, Station Road Langley Mill AVA/2013/0695 Full 12 0 0 12 000000012full permission.
West of Aeromatic, Derby Road Marehay AVA/2011/1124 Full 41 0 0 30 11 00000041Crest Nicholson site with full planning permission. 19 Church Street Heanor AVA/2015/0084 Full 12 057000000012 Black Horse Inn Somercotes AVA/2014/0208 Outline 18 0 0 10 800000018 Delves Court Heanor AVA/2015/0296 Full 32 0 10 22 000000032Futures Homescape site with full approval Land at Salcombe Road Alfreton AVA/2014/0791 Full 21 0 10 11 000000021Derwent Living Ltd ‐ approved May 2015
Site pursued by the Council. Delivery rates assumed Former Thorntons Factory Site Belper AVA/2014/1120 Outline 50 0 0 0 50 00000050correct however developer interest unknown. Spenhill Developments ‐ application approved 09 June Derwent Street Belper AVA/2014/0470 Outline 107 0 0 20 30 30 17 0000972015 17 King Street Alfreton AVA/2015/0347 Full 11 0 11 0000000011 Totals 931 55 94 195 158 30 17 0 0 0 0 494
Large Greenfield Sites With Planning Permission Application Remaining Johnson Brook Ten Year Supply 2015/16 to 2024/25 JB Total Site Address Town Application Type Johnson Brook Notes Reference Capacity 2016‐21 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 AVA/2007/0498, Park Grange, Derby Road Heanor AVA/2011/0303 Reserved Matters 330000000000 Land off Nailers Way Belper AVA/2010/0023 Full 15 15 0000000000
Land off Waingroves Road Ripley AVA/2013/0642 Reserved Matters 96 20 20 20 20 16 0000076Reduced delivery rate reflects Council's projections
Land south of Heanor Road Smalley AVA/2012/1157 Full 94 20 20 20 20 14 0000074Reduced delivery rate reflects Council's projections Land off Holburn View Codnor AVA/2012/0965 Outline 79 0 0 30 30 19 0000079Peveril Homes site, can deliver in five year period. Ben Bailey Homes site approved February 2015. Can Eachwell Lane Alfreton AVA/2014/1036 Full 149 10 30 30 30 30 29 0000149deliver in five year period. Land off Somme Road Derby AVA/2015/0046 Reserved Matters 30 5 10 15 000000025 Land off Heanor Road Smalley Heanor AVA/2014/0817 Outline 101 0 0 15 30 30 26 0000101Peveril Homes site approved April 2015 Gladman Developments ‐ site allowed on appeal 13 Roes Lane Crich AVA/2014/0281 Outline 113 0 0 15 30 30 30 8000105July 2015 Totals 680 73 80 145 160 139 85 8 0 0 0 609
Sites with Resolution to Grant Subject to S106 Agreement Application Johnson Brook Ten Year Supply 2015/16 to 2024/25 JB Total Site Address Town Application Type Capacity Johnson Brook Notes Reference 2016‐21 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Nottingham Road Ripley AVA/2012/1086 Outline 126 0 0 15 30 30 30 21 0 0 0 105 Clowes Developments Application submitted by landowner with no known Land at Fall Road Heanor AVA/2013/0467 Outline 176 0 0 0 30 30 30 30 30 26 0 90 developer John Smedley Ltd, Lea Road Lea Bridge AVA/2014/0265 Outline 26 0 0 10 16 00000026 Waystone Developments site ‐ no known developer Shipley Lakeside Heanor AVA/2015/0403 Outline 307 0 0 15 30 50 50 50 50 50 12 145 interest Coal Industry Welfare Organisation ‐ Decision now Loscoe Miners Welfare Loscoe AVA/2014/0923 Outline 68 0 0 15 30 30 3000078anticipated by 31 December. 27‐35 Coast Hill Crich AVA/2014/0678 Full 18 0 5 13 000000018 Totals 721 0 5 68 136 140 113 101 80 76 12 462
Local Plan Allocations Without Planning Permission Application Johnson Brook Ten Year Supply 2015/16 to 2024/25 JB Total Site Address Town Application Type Capacity Johnson Brook Notes Reference 2016‐21 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Johnson Brook are not in a position to include this site within the trajectory without evidence to demonstrate the site can come forward. The site is not currently Derby Road Duffield N/a N/a 39 00000000000footnote 11 compliant. Johnson Brook are not in a position to include this site within the trajectory without evidence to demonstrate the site can come forward. The site is not currently Plumptree Road Langley Mill N/a N/a 20 00000000000footnote 11 compliant. Gregg Avenue Heanor AVA/2015/0819 14 0 0 14 000000014Chevin Homes Totals 73 0014000000014
Strategic Sites in Submitted Core Strategy 2013 Without Planning Permission Application Johnson Brook Ten Year Supply 2015/16 to 2024/25 JB Total Site Address Town Application Type Capacity Johnson Brook Notes Reference 2016‐21 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Application received for small parcel of the site totalling 120 units and currently undetermined, applicant has confirmed anticipated delivery commencing Year 2017/18 at 30 d/pa. In the absence of a planning application to cover the wider site Johnson Brook consider a greater lead in time for the remainder of the site considering its scale and associated lead in times. JB have assumed first completions for the larger SUE commencing Year 2019/20 This approach is in line with the findings of Land north of Denby Denby AVA/2014/0293 N/a 1550 0 0 30 30 60 80 75 75 100 100 200 the Savills Report on SUEs. Newlands/Taylor Lane Heanor AVA/2014/0999 Outline 500 0 0 0 30 50 50 50 50 50 50 130 Omnivale Ltd ‐ Awaiting decision. Totals 2050 0 0 30 60 110 130 125 125 150 150 330 Strategic Sites in Further Proposed Changes 2014/Revisions to Further Proposed Changes 2015 to Submitted Core Strategy Application Remaining Johnson Brook Ten Year Supply 2015/16 to 2024/25 JB Total Site Address Town Application Type Johnson Brook Notes Reference Capacity 2016‐21 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 In the absence of a planning application and any further evidence to substantiate delivery Johnson Brook query the likelihood of this site delivering in Radbourne Lane Derby N/a N/a 90 000030303000060Year 2017/18 In the absence of a planning application and any further evidence to substantiate delivery Johnson Brook query the likelihood of this site delivering in Somercotes Hill Alfreton N/a N/a 200 000030303030303060Year 2017/18 It is understood Taylor Wimpey are pursuing this site. The presence of a major volume house builder with delivery rates confirmed adds a degree of certainty the Chesterfield Road Alfreton N/a N/a 300 0 0 50 60 65 65 60 0 0 0 240 site can come forward Large strategic mixed use urban extension submitted by Peveril Securities Ltd with revised determination deadline of January 2016. The Council have projected delivery in Year 2015/16, Johnson Brook highly question this given the site has yet achieve an outline permission. Findings of Savills Report on SUEs would Lily Street Farm Swanwick AVA/2014/1154 Outline 600 0 0 20 50 75 75 75 75 75 75 220 suggest first completions December 2017 In the absence of a planning application and any further evidence to substantiate delivery Johnson Brook query the likelihood of this site delivering in Hall Road Langley Mill N/a N/a 80 000030302000060Year 2017/18
Asher Lane (North) Ripley AVA/2013/0891 Outline 80 0 0 10 30 30 10 000080Application submitted by City Capital Investments Asher Lane (South) Ripley N/a N/a 65 00003030500060 Butterly Hall Ripley N/a N/a 120 0000303030300060 Totals 1535 0 0 80 140 320 300 250 135 105 105 840
Further Five Year Supply Sites Application Remaining Johnson Brook Ten Year Supply 2015/16 to 2024/25 JB Total Site Address Town Application Type Johnson Brook Notes Reference Capacity 2016‐21 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Former Exchange Sidings, Bridge Street Langley Mill AVA/2014/0790 Outline 58 0 0 15 30 13 0000058 Labour Club, 2‐10 Lander Lane Belper AVA/2015/0338 Outline 13 0 0 13 000000013 Danesby Rise Denby AVA/2015/0376 Outline 45 0 0 15 30 00000045 Belper Police Station, Field Lane Belper AVA/2015/0674 Full 13 0 0 13 000000013 Crich Road, Crich Common Fritchley AVA/2015/0830 Full 16 0 0 16 000000016 Newlands Inn, Golden Valley Riddings AVA/2015/0897 Full 13 0 0 13 000000013 Included within trajectory given modest numbers however in the absence of a planning application Johnson Brook question the inclusion of this site Cromford Road Crich N/a N/a 20 0 0 0 10 10 0000020without further evidence to demonstrate delivery. Included within trajectory given modest numbers however in the absence of a planning application Johnson Brook question the inclusion of this site Holbrook Road Belper N/a N/a 15 0005100000015without further evidence to demonstrate delivery. Included within trajectory given modest numbers Allocated site in however in the absence of a planning application Neighbourhood Johnson Brook question the inclusion of this site Cemetery Road Ripley Plan 2000010100000020without further evidence to demonstrate delivery. Totals 213 0085854300000213
Totals 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25
248 395 886 1019 999 784 619 475 466 402 Amber Valley Housing Supply 01/12/2015 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2021
Five Year Requirement 2015/16 to 2019/20
Requirement Johnson Brook AVBC
Annual Requirement 592 575 Five Year Requirement 2960 2875
Shortfall 2011/12 to 2014/15 1403 1335
Requirement + Shortfall 4363 4210 Buffer Required by NPPF (20%) 873 842 Total Requirement 5236 5052
Adjusted Annual Requirement 1047 pa 1010 pa
Five Year Supply 2015/16 to 2019/20
Johnson Brook AVBC
Adopted Local Plan Sites With Planning Permission 1102 1321 Large Brownfield Sites With Planning Permission 532 860 Large Greenfield Sites With Planning Permission 597 661 Small Brownfield Sites (Windfall) 285 285 Sites With Resolution to Grant Subject to S106 349 414 Adopted Local Plan Allocations Without Planning Permission 14 73 Core Strategy Sites Without Planning Permission 200 431 Additional Core Strategy Sites 540 942 Additional Sites (Local Plan Part 2/Neighbourhood Plans) 213 213
Total Supply 3832 5200
Five Year Supply 2016/17 to 2020/21 3.66 Years 5.15 Years
Five Year Requirement 2016/17 to 2020/21
Requirement Johnson Brook AVBC
Annual Requirement 592 575 Five Year Requirement 2960 2875
Shortfall 2011/12 to 2014/15 1403 1335 Projected Completions 2015/16 305 320 *Council's trajectory ‐ identified sites + 1 year windfall Projected Shortfall 2015/16 287 255 *not accounted for within Council's calculation Total Projected Shortfall 1690 1590
Requirement + Shortfall 4650 4465 Buffer Required by NPPF (20%) 930 893 Total Requirement 5580 5358
Adjusted Annual Requirement 1116 pa 1072 pa Five Year Supply 2016/17 to 2020/21
Johnson Brook AVBC
Adopted Local Plan Sites With Planning Permission 1121 1323 Large Brownfield Sites With Planning Permission 494 875 Large Greenfield Sites With Planning Permission 609 606 Small Brownfield Sites (Windfall) 285 285 Sites With Resolution to Grant Subject to S106 462 514 Adopted Local Plan Allocations Without Planning Permission 14 73 Core Strategy Sites Without Planning Permission 330 638 Additional Core Strategy Sites 840 1143 Additional Sites (Local Plan Part 2/Neighbourhood Plans) 213 213
Total Supply 4368 5670
Five Year Supply 2016/17 to 2020/21 3.91 Years 5.29 Years
APPENDIX 2 – INSPECTORS LETTER ON CORE STRATEGY EXAMINATION 12TH MAY 2014
26
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
Amber Valley Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy – Examination
Address for correspondence Tel: 07969 631930 Programme Officer Email: [email protected] c/o Community Planning Amber Valley Borough Council Town Hall Ripley Derbyshire DE5 3BT
Date: 12 May 2014
Mr R Thorley Community Planning Manager Amber Valley Borough Council Town Hall Market Place Ripley DE5 3BT
Dear Mr Thorley
Examination of the Amber Valley Local Plan part 1 – the Core Strategy
As indicated at the hearing session on 1 May, I consider it necessary to suspend the examination of the plan to enable the Council to carry out certain pieces of further work. These are set out beneath under points 1-3. I cover the procedural aspects of the suspension at point 4.
1 Objectively assessed housing need
My letter to the Council dated 7 April 2014 concluded that Fig 14 of the sensitivity testing carried out by GL Hearn on behalf of the three Housing Market Area (HMA) authorities is likely to provide a sound assessment of housing needs for the period 2011-28.
As was accepted at the hearing on 1 May, the adjusted need figures set out in Fig 14 will require the HMA authorities to revisit the Duty-to-Cooperate (DtC) to review the way in which the City of Derby’s increased unmet needs should be distributed between Amber Valley and South Derbyshire, bearing in mind agreement that Derby’s ability to meet its own needs is capped by its fixed physical capacity.
Encouragingly, the 3 authorities expressed a continuing positive approach to this re-visiting of the DtC. However, in doing so the HMA authorities will also need to consider very carefully the extent to which re-consultation with other neighbouring authorities may be necessary in order to satisfy the legal duty or the soundness test of ‘positive preparation’.
Employing the figures from Fig 14, the Amber Valley requirement for the period 2011-28 is as follows:
Inspector: Roy Foster MA MRTPI Programme Officer: Carmel Edwards B Lib (Hons) MCLIP Amber Valley Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy – Examination
Borough’s assessed needs: 17yrs x 435pa 7395 Borough’s contribution to Derby’s needs, as in submitted plan 1074* (* this element requires joint HMA reconsideration under the DtC)
Total requirement 2011-28 (subject to DtC review as above) 8469* (498pa)
Borough’s 5-year housing land requirement:
5-yr basic annual average 498 x 5 (subject to DtC review) 2490 plus
(1) deficit accrued 2011-14, ie 1494 (498 x 3) minus 694 completions in those years, to be made up within the first 5 years where possible [national Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) on Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment, Methodology Stage 5, para 035] 800
(2) 20% buffer brought forward into first 5 years for persistent under-delivery [National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) para 47] 498
Total 3788* (*subject to DtC review as above)
I have considered the views expressed about requiring further additions to the supply to make up for the deficit in house-building which occurred in 2008-11. However, in my view the Strategic Market Assessment (SHMA), subject to the sensitivity testing undertaken in March 2014, can be considered an adequate base point for capturing and then projecting forward the overall needs existing at around the time of the 2011 Census. Although the census may have reflected an element of suppressed household formation resulting from the economic downturn, the sensitivity tests allow for a phased return to less suppressed levels.
The land requirement summarised above includes an allowance to enable the shortfall in 2011-14 to be made up by 2018/19, in accordance with national PPG as well as a 20% buffer for persistent under-delivery in accordance with the NPPF. Provision on that scale should ensure that land supply in Amber Valley would not be a constraining factor preventing either the significant boost to house-building sought by the NPPF or the potential for increased household formation.
I conclude that no further addition to the above supply is necessary to compensate for deficits in 2008-11 against the former Regional Spatial Strategy. Although those years were nominally the first 3 of the plan I am not convinced that any other aspects of the strategy, such as its retail and employment land policies, would be undermined or made unsound in any identifiably material way by rebasing the housing provision from 2011. In any case, alongside the content of the core strategy major retail proposals often require the preparation of impact studies based on data current at the time, while the detailed review of employment land allocations has been delegated to the forthcoming part 2 plan so any necessary
Inspector: Roy Foster MA MRTPI Programme Officer: Carmel Edwards B Lib (Hons) MCLIP Amber Valley Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy – Examination revisiting of the broad-brush data behind the Employment Land Review could be undertaken in that context.
By the time of its adoption the plan’s forward view would be less than the ‘preferably 15-year time horizon’ indicated in the NPPF. However, I do not consider it essential to lengthen the plan’s time horizon at this point in the process since monitoring of the plan is bound to point to the need for its review well within its period to take account of housing outputs and future household projections and to provide a firm basis for rolling forward the 5-year supply.
2 5-year housing land supply
As explained beneath, I have serious concern that the plan does not provide a secure 5-year housing land supply and is not consistent with national policy in that respect.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires (para 47) that in order to bring about a significant boost to the supply of housing, local planning authorities should identify specific ‘deliverable sites’ sufficient to provide a 5-year supply of housing land against their housing requirements. ‘Deliverable sites’ are defined as ones which are ‘available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and are achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within 5 years and in particular that development is viable’. Sites with planning permission are to be considered deliverable until permission expires ‘unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within 5 years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units, or sites have long term phasing plans.’]
The national PPG states at para 008 ref ID12-008 that a Council’s policies will not be considered up-to-date if the existence of a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites cannot be demonstrated. It therefore follows that a plan would be unlikely to be sound (and therefore appropriate to proceed to adoption) in such circumstances.
Until the revised distribution of Derby’s unsatisfied needs has been determined (see point 1 above) the precise target for Amber Valley’s 5-year supply remains unknown. However, in the meantime, I have considered the views expressed by the Council and others about the likely deliverability of the sites in Amber Valley’s 5- year supply update of the position as at 31.3.14, as against a provisional need of 3,788. I also visited a certain number of sites in the schedules, although by no means all. I deal below with the categories of sites identified by the Council.
Allocated sites with planning permission
The Council estimates that these sites will deliver 1022 completions by 2018/19. Most are under construction or have full planning permission and may be able to perform as indicated. However, the Middlebrook Transport site is still in active use and only has outline planning permission so it may be optimistic to assume that 50 completions are likely to occur within the period. Coppice Farm only has outline permission and still has to be sold to a house builder, so may not be able to deliver as many as 220 by 2018/19, while a contribution of the same size at Outseats Farm may also be slightly optimistic by the timescales discussed at the examination. Reliable completions from this category of sites may in the order of 900-950.
Inspector: Roy Foster MA MRTPI Programme Officer: Carmel Edwards B Lib (Hons) MCLIP Amber Valley Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy – Examination
Larger brownfield sites with planning permission
The Council estimates that such sites would yield some 614 dwellings by 2018/19. However, there appear to be significant uncertainties associated with some of these. Many have not progressed beyond outline permissions granted some time ago. Some examples of sites whose actual availability was questioned without any convincing reply are QES Ripley, the former Evans Concrete, Ripley (now in another commercial use), Heanor Haulage (a location of limited attractiveness and unknown availability), and a number of other sites (eg Leabrooks Club; Station Road and other sites in Langley Mill; Parkside Close, Ironville). I also saw that the site at Newlands Drive, Riddings, if actually available, would require considerable clearance. This is not a comprehensive picture of the sites in this category, but overall it appears on present evidence that the actual yield could be considerably less than estimated, possibly in the region of 400.
Larger unallocated greenfield sites with planning permission
These sites are mainly either under construction or being progressed towards commencement by local house-builders. From the available evidence there is nothing to suggest that the indicated total of 335 completions could not occur by 2018/19 even if there were to be some internal slippage within the 5 years.
Small brownfield windfall sites
The Council’s estimate of 250 (50pa) from this source by 2018/19 seems reasonable.
Small greenfield sites with planning permission
The Council’s estimate of 80 (16pa) within the period from this source also appears reasonable.
Sites with resolution to grant planning permission subject to S106 agreement
The Council’s update paper estimates some 519 completions from these 7 sites. A number of them have been progressing only slowly, even towards outline planning permission, and some questions were raised about the viability and attractiveness of certain sites. In my view it would be prudent to assume some slippage in delivery by these sites, relying upon no more than 400 from these sources within 5 years.
Local Plan allocations without planning permission or resolution to grant planning permission subject to S106 agreement
The Council suggests 207 completions on these 5 sites by 2018/19. However, two (at Duffield and Langley Mill) have been allocated since 2006 but have not yet reached the stage of a planning application. Another of the larger sites (Milford Mills, at a pivotal position in the World Heritage Site) is the subject of an application submitted in 2006 which has not yet been determined, although a decision is described as ‘pending’. From what was said about the waste disposal site at Pye Bridge this is a smaller site which may be of little attraction. All in all, on present
Inspector: Roy Foster MA MRTPI Programme Officer: Carmel Edwards B Lib (Hons) MCLIP Amber Valley Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy – Examination evidence the 5-year contributions from this group of sites appear significantly optimistic, with delivery perhaps only in the region of 100.
Strategic sites without planning permission
The Council estimates some 890 5-year completions from the strategic allocations.
Land north of Denby (SG3) – from all the evidence presented, this is capable in principle of being a sound and realisable large-scale allocation, subject to some modification covering the matters covered at the hearing about which I will shortly write to the Council separately. However, the estimated completion of 486 dwellings by 2018/19 appears over-optimistic in view of the likely lead times necessary for obtaining outline planning permission, signing appropriate agreements/undertakings, approving the necessary remediation programme for the tar pits, resolving the issues associated with 17 different ownerships (possibly requiring a compulsory purchase order), disposing of land to house-builders who would then need to obtain their own reserved matters approvals, and installing the necessary early stages of infrastructure. It may be realistic to assume the delivery of up to 120 homes by 2018/19 on the frontage land owned by an individual owner willing and able to make early progress. However, that is likely to be the maximum contribution from this site which can be relied upon with a sufficient degree of certainty within 5 years.
Alfreton Road, Codnor (SG2) and Nottingham Road, Ripley (SG7) – under point 3 below I conclude that there is a need for the production of more clearly reasoned and focused evidence concerning the ‘exceptional circumstances’ for removing this land from the Green Belt. The soundness of allocating these sites remains dependent upon that. Subject to that, there would be tight timetables and challenges to meet on approvals, securing the County Council’s participation as a landowner, guaranteeing assured and affordable forward capital-funding of the road, completing disposals to house-builders and their securing of reserved matters approvals.
In view of the above factors I consider it appropriate to be cautious about the deliverability of more than a combined total of about 450 completions in the 5-year period at sites SG2, SG3, SG4 and SG7.
Sites in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)
In its recent housing land supply update statement (April 2014) the Council pointed to a number of SHLAA sites which it sought to include within the 5-year land supply, suggesting that they could produce as many as 1,651 completions within the period. There could be some circumstances in which such sites may be considered to meet the NPPF definition of deliverability. However, the SHLAA itself identifies the great importance of noting that this is a piece of evidence, not an allocations document, that inclusion of a site does not imply that planning permission should be granted for any specific use, and that allocations are to be made through the Development Plan.
Most of the sites identified by the Council are greenfield sites for which planning applications have not yet been submitted but were said to be being ‘pursued’. In many cases planning permission on such sites would be outside present planning
Inspector: Roy Foster MA MRTPI Programme Officer: Carmel Edwards B Lib (Hons) MCLIP Amber Valley Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy – Examination policy for the Borough; moreover, it can reasonably be supposed that many such applications would raise the kinds of site-specific issues to which the SHLAA itself refers and arouse at least some public opposition, in some cases possibly a great deal. It would therefore tend to be premature, without further firm evidence, to count such greenfield sites as part of an assured supply with a reasonable prospect of delivery within the period.
A smaller number of the SHLAA sites are brownfield, although not necessarily within the defined urban areas. The majority of the larger ones are again at pre- application stage. If firm convincing evidence can be brought forward to justify a conclusion that a SHLAA site would have a reasonable prospect of contributing within the period it could be possible to take account of them, but there is a danger of the plan-preparation process being perceived as being bypassed if such sites were to be relied upon to a significant degree.
If any sites in the SHLAA are able to make truly deliverable contributions within 5 years it would be more in keeping with a plan-led system to introduce the larger ones into the core strategy as strategic allocations or, in the case of the smaller sites, to consider including them as part of the provision to be made through the forthcoming Site Allocations Plan.
Overall conclusion
From the nature of the evidence which was available it is difficult to assess precisely how far the stock of truly deliverable housing land falls short of the interim 5-year requirement referred to above. However, I am in no doubt that the Council is currently unable to demonstrate the existence of a secure deliverable 5- year supply: on present evidence that supply appears to be somewhere in the region of 3,000. The submitted plan is incapable of progressing to adoption until this is remedied. The Council therefore needs to identify and bring forward further strategic allocations to deal with this shortfall. If necessary this may require exercising flexibility about the minimum size for such allocations. While not departing too far from the strategy of concentrating on the main towns it may also be helpful to select sites from a slightly wider range of locations as this would provide more market choice and probably speed take-up and delivery.
The successful identification of a secure 5-year supply would safeguard Amber Valley against unwelcome applications on sites not allocated in accordance with the adopted plan. However, the evidence base for the 5-year supply needs to be realistic, transparent and unambiguous. Reliance should not be placed upon sites which (in all the circumstances) are unlikely to meet the requirement of the NPPF for a ‘realistic prospect’ of delivery. Other advice on availability is included in Planning Practice Guidance paras 3-020/023. The Council will therefore need to adopt a carefully informed and critical approach to the inclusion of individual sites within the supply, avoiding insufficiently founded assumptions or undue optimism. It would also be prudent not to adopt too minimalist an approach to the new allocations since the significant boost to supply sought by the NPPF (and a secure 5-year supply) is probably more achievable by allocating a larger number of suitable sites at a greater variety of locations rather than placing too much reliance on a smaller number of sites at fewer locations.
Inspector: Roy Foster MA MRTPI Programme Officer: Carmel Edwards B Lib (Hons) MCLIP Amber Valley Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy – Examination
3 Policy SS11 (amendments to the Green Belt), policy IN4 (the proposed new A610 relief road) and policies SG2 and SG7 (the strategic allocations at Alfreton Road, Codnor and Nottingham Road, Ripley)
As discussed at the hearings, NPPF (paragraph 83) requires the identification of ‘exceptional circumstances’ to justify the alteration of Green Belt boundaries through a review of the Local Plan. The recent High Court case of Gallagher Homes Ltd & Solihull MBC reinforces that this is a stringent test and reiterates the importance of ensuring that reasons for any decision concerning exceptional circumstances are clearly and unambiguously identified and explained.
The Core Strategy identifies exceptional circumstances for deleting land from the Green Belt at Ripley and Codnor in the first paragraph of section 6.15. This states that the provision of the new link road will relieve congestion on the A610 and improve the east-west link between the A6/A38 and the M1, thereby ‘enabling (my emphasis) the provision of new housing development and the development of high quality employment land, which will help to improve the local economy.’
This chain of reasoning appears to be the wrong way round. The Council accepted at the hearing that there are sufficient candidate sites to meet Amber Valley’s housing and employment land needs without the requirement to consider removing land from the Green Belt. Consequently, the main ‘exceptional circumstance’ identified by the Council appears to be that the long-planned new road (otherwise unlikely to be funded within any foreseeable timescale) could be enabled by funding generated if sites SG2 and SG7 were to released from the Green Belt for development. The new housing and employment land would contribute towards the Borough’s needs, but those needs are not in themselves presented as the ‘exceptional circumstance’ justifying the proposed alteration to the Green Belt.
I therefore conclude that the plan needs to be supported by a new, stand-alone statement of evidence about the current perceived need for this piece of highway infrastructure. Since that need is the fundamental factor behind the existence or otherwise of ‘exceptional circumstances’, such evidence should place less emphasis on the length of time during which the road has been ‘on the stocks’ as a planned proposal and more upon the current perceived need for it. This would include (a) the specific evidenced reasons why the existing Ripley – Woodlinkin section of the A610 is unable to fulfil the particular role and purpose it is intended to serve as compared with the already improved sections of the route which, as I have seen, represent the greater part of its overall length, and b) the material improvements which the diverted route would bring in those respects.
It is not my role as part of the examination to consider the new road’s design in great detail, as shown in the current planning applications. However, the new evidence should provide sufficient information about (c) whether or not the current intended design/width/specification of the new link (including the number and position of its junctions with roads serving the new areas of development) would allow the route to fulfil its intended purpose as an improved section of the A610, as identified under (a). It should also (d) demonstrate clearly that the associated developments will be able to generate the level of funding required to complete the new link, thereby providing assurance that the outcome expected by the identified ‘exceptional circumstances’ is capable of being delivered.
Inspector: Roy Foster MA MRTPI Programme Officer: Carmel Edwards B Lib (Hons) MCLIP Amber Valley Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy – Examination
If such evidence can be clearly formulated, the Council would need to use it as a foundation for proposing changes to appropriate sections of the Core Strategy, identifying the ‘exceptional circumstances’ for altering the Green Belt boundaries for the housing/employment development and the bypass which it would enable.
4 Procedural matters
The Council will now need to take action to bring forward proposals for changes to the plan covering points 1-3 above. Such changes will of course require a revised sustainability appraisal and consultations including a period of advertisement for 6 weeks during which representations may be made for consideration at resumed hearings. It is not appropriate for me to set a precise date for those hearings now, although it was suggested at the hearing on 1 May that this should be no later than November, since 6 months is usually regarded as the maximum period for suspension.
I would be grateful if the Council can now draw up a draft timetable for the work to be undertaken. This will need to include sufficient time at the end for the Council to sort representations about the proposed changes into groups related to particular sites or policies, which will greatly facilitate my absorption of their contents. Sufficient time will also need to be included for me to prepare and circulate agendas before the hearings sessions. Please be in contact with the Programme Officer as soon as possible about this draft programme.
If they contribute to a sound plan the above changes will clearly have to be advertised after the hearings as Main Modifications. The Council has, of course, already prepared a schedule of Main Modifications concerning certain other matters raised in my initial soundness concerns and questions. Most of these would remain appropriate to be taken forward and advertised at the formal Main Modifications stage subject to the comments in brackets beneath*.
*[MM1 will need further change in the light of point 1 of this letter. However, the Council should also check whether any of the changes proposed as a result of this letter require other consequential amendments to the MMs. MM12: It has been agreed that the words ‘…in the countryside unless….’ should be replaced by ‘..if..’. MM13-MM14: I have agreed with the Council that these are unnecessary. MM17 may not be consistent with the resolution to grant planning permission for part of the SG7 site fronting Nottingham Road. This will require checking.]
Two further matters arose from discussion of the Main Modifications on 2 May. Concerning MM24-25, it was agreed that the suspension provides an opportunity to review their current content in order to secure conformity of policy R1 with the Government’s recent announcement of its conclusions on its review of housing standards. Similarly, concerning policy E6, the suspension gives time to put forward suitable new material on ecological networks. As these matters will cover totally new material the Council should include their proposals on both of the above matters in its revised sustainability appraisal and in their consultations so that they can, if necessary, be considered after the suspension.
Roy Foster
Inspector
Inspector: Roy Foster MA MRTPI Programme Officer: Carmel Edwards B Lib (Hons) MCLIP
APPENDIX 3 – APPEAL DECISION APP/M1005/A/14/2226553, LAND AT ROES LANE, CRICH
27
Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015
Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 9-12 June 2015 Site visit made on 11 June 2015 by John L Gray DipArch MSc Registered Architect an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 13 July 2015
Appeal Ref. APP/M1005/A/14/2226553 Land at Roes Lane, Crich, Derbyshire, DE4 5DH 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 Amber Valley Borough Council. The application, ref. AVA/2014/0281 dated 9 April 2014, was refused by notice dated 11 July 2014. The development proposed is the erection of up to 113 dwellings with associated open space and landscaping, with all matters reserved except for access.
Decision 1. The appeal is allowed. Planning permission is granted for the erection of up to 113 dwellings with associated open space and landscaping on land at Roes Lane, Crich, Derbyshire, DE4 5DH, in accordance with the terms of the application, ref. AVA/2014/0281 dated 9 April 2014, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule attached to this decision. Application for costs 2. At the inquiry, an application for costs was made by Gladman Developments Limited against Amber Valley Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Main Issues 3. There are two main issues in the appeal. The first is whether, bearing in mind the provisions of the Development Plan and the absence of a 5-year supply of housing land, the proposed development would be sustainable in terms of its scale and location. The second, a reason for refusal withdrawn by the Council but an objection maintained by local people, is whether development on the appeal site would cause a pollution risk either to residents of the proposed housing or to the wider community. 4. There is a third issue, which effectively comes into play only if there is no compelling objection arising from the first two. It is whether affordable housing should be provided on-site, off-site or in a combination of both.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/M1005/A/14/2226553
Reasons First main issue – sustainability The Development Plan 5. So far as this appeal is concerned, the Development Plan comprises the saved policies from the Amber Valley Local Plan 2006.1 The Plan itself set out policies and proposals up to 2011 and was prepared in the context of the now rescinded Structure Plan. Among the policies saved in 2009 are those referred to in reason for refusal no. 1 – Policies LS1, EN1 and H5. 6. Policy LS1 sets out six sustainability criteria which should be taken into account in considering the location of development. Although reason for refusal no. 1 says that the proposal is in conflict with all six, there is agreement in the Statement of Common Ground that criteria (e) and (f) are not breached. There is agreement that the proposal would conflict with criterion (b), although that indicates only a preference, not a requirement, for the use of previously developed land rather than greenfield sites; and it is also agreed that there is conflict with part of criterion (c) in that the loss to housing of a greenfield site could not be said to protect or enhance the quality of the natural environment. The major part of the Council’s case is that the proposal would be in breach of criteria (a) and (d) because it would not be well-related to existing patterns of development (a) and would not minimise the need to travel or offer opportunities for journeys other than by private car (d). In broad terms, Policy LS1 is in line with the thrust of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and must still attract considerable weight. 7. Policy EN1 is essentially a policy for the protection of the countryside, restricting the types of development that may be permitted outside the built framework of settlements. It is, however, the counterpart of policies for the provision of development and, to that extent, may be considered out-of-date in the context of a Plan providing for development only up to 2011. Policy H5 says much the same thing as Policy EN1, though specific to housing development, and may be considered out-of-date for the same reason. The emerging Core Strategy 8. Examination of the emerging Core Strategy had been suspended at the time of the inquiry. The Council agrees that no more than limited weight can be given to the Plan. Even if hearings were to resume very shortly, the very earliest it could be adopted, without there being any significant objections to be resolved, would be around the end of 2015. 9. Notwithstanding that, emerging Policy SS12 was argued by the Council as being the ‘daughter’ of saved policy EN1, thus enabling more weight to be given to that policy. As initially drafted, that may be so. However, the wording as now proposed modifies criterion (b) so significantly that that argument can no longer be sustained. Housing need and supply 10. The Housing Market Area (HMA) for the purposes of the emerging Core Strategy covers Derby and South Derbyshire as well as Amber Valley. The Local Plan Inspector has said that the housing requirement of 33,388 for the HMA should be maintained as the objectively assessed need (OAN) as it
1 The Derby and Derbyshire Minerals Local Plan and Waste Local Plan are part of the Development Plan but there are no policies in either relevant to this appeal. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/M1005/A/14/2226553
provides “appropriate margins of comfort” over the 32,207 requirement that was more recently calculated. This leads to a figure of 592 dwellings per annum (dpa) for Amber Valley – 2,960 over five years. 11. It is common ground that the Council cannot presently demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land. It calculates a supply of 2,461 dwellings, though that includes a windfall allowance of 205 dpa whereas the Local Plan Inspector has indicated that an appropriate allowance would be 50 dpa. It also accepts that a 20% delivery buffer is applicable, rather than the 5% in its own calculation. A total of 694 dwellings has been completed since the Plan’s start date of 2011, leaving a backlog of 1,082 dwellings. Taking all of this into account, and using the Sedgefield method to deal with the backlog, the 3.1-year supply claimed by the Council is reduced to just 1.8-years. 12. The Council produced a Housing Land Supply Statement in April 2014, claiming a supply of 5,565 dwellings. However, the Local Plan Inspector made clear that he thought the supply was actually “somewhere in the region of 3,000”. The Council has said it would redraft that document and has not sought to rely on it, or any amendment of it, in this appeal. However, if the supply were to be taken as 3,000, it would still amount to only 3.23 years. 13. Thus, whichever view is taken of housing land availability, it falls considerably short of a 5-year supply. If one then looks to see how quickly the shortfall might be rectified, the signs are not encouraging. There is no indication of when exactly the Council will publish housing land supply figures or if, when it does, they will not be the subject of significant objection. It seems likely that, at the earliest, it will be well into 2016 before the Core Strategy, assuming it is found sound, could be adopted. At the same time, it could easily be over three years before dwellings could be delivered on the appeal site, by which time the land supply issue may have been resolved. 14. Setting that to one side, housing land supply at the present time is somewhere between 35% and 65% of what it should be, the Council accepts that a significant number of greenfield sites will have to be released to achieve a 5-year supply and the Local Plan Inspector has suggested looking at “a slightly wider range of locations [than the four main settlements of Alfreton, Belper, Heanor and Ripley] as this would provide more market choice and probably speed take-up and delivery”. Conclusion on policy and housing supply 15. The conclusions are clear. Firstly, saved Policies EN1 and H5 must be considered out-of-date. Case law2 is clear that they are to be considered as policies for the supply of housing in as much as they restrict housing in the countryside as a counterpart of policies for the provision of housing. But there are no such policies and there is a significant shortfall of deliverable housing land. Secondly, any measure which will contribute to reducing that shortfall should be given careful consideration and the search, on the Local Plan Inspector’s suggestion, should be cast wider than the present concentration on the four main settlements in Amber Valley.
2 In South Northamptonshire Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2014] EWHC 573 (Admin), Ouseley J held that a policy which stated that planning permission would not be granted for development in the open countryside, subject to certain exceptions, was a policy for the supply of housing within para. 49 of the NPPF; he distinguished between such a general policy and one to protect a specific area or feature such as a gap between settlements. Lang J endorsed Ouseley J’s reasons in Cheshire East Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Richborough Estates Partnerships LLP [2015] EHWC 410 (Admin), though that case is to go to the Court of Appeal. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/M1005/A/14/2226553
16. Both parts of para. 49 of the NPPF therefore come into play and so too does para 14. The question thus to be answered is whether any adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, assessed against the policies in the NPPF, or whether specific policies therein indicate that development should be restricted. 17. The possibility of prematurity in relation to the plan-making process does not arise. A development of up to 113 dwellings is not so substantial in relation to the overall housing need in Amber Valley that it could possibly undermine that process. Indeed, the Council does not raise prematurity as an issue. Nor can it be an issue in relation to preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan, which has yet to reach the stage of an initial questionnaire to local residents.
Specific NPPF policy
18. There is no specific policy in the NPPF which indicates that development of the appeal site should be restricted. It does not come within any of the examples identified in footnote 9 to para. 14. That list is not closed but no other claim is argued. The site is in the countryside – but para. 17 says that one should “take account of the different roles and character of different areas, … … recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it”. Thus, the merit of the proposal must be weighed in terms of what might be lost and what support it might give to the village of Crich. Para. 32 says that decisions should take account of whether “opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site” – again, the merits are to be weighed in the balance and should bear in mind what is said in paras. 54 and 55 about housing in rural areas.
19. The sustainability of the proposed development is therefore to be assessed in terms of the three dimensions set out in para. 7 of the NPPF. And, bearing in mind that the relevant Development Plan policies are out-of-date, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in para. 14 will apply if the benefits of providing the proposed housing are not “significantly and demonstrably” outweighed by the adverse impacts. Location of the appeal site within Amber Valley 20. The emerging Core Strategy seeks, through Policy SS1, to place most of the required housing growth in and around the four main urban areas of Alfreton, Belper, Heanor and Ripley. That does not appear to be an unreasonable approach in principle. The Policy also says that a limited amount of growth will take place at villages in accessible and sustainable locations, the specific intention being to promote the vitality and viability of communities, maintain their rural character and individual identities and meet the needs of the local community. 21. The meaning of “limited” in this context is nowhere defined. The report on the Core Strategy presented to Full Council on 15 October 2014 says that, while some additional housing development may be beneficial, particularly in larger villages, “the scale of development on individual sites should generally be below 50 dwellings, given the need to maintain and promote sustainable patterns of development”. However, no reasons are given as to why this should be – the figure of 50 refers to sites, not villages, which might mean that a much larger number of dwellings could be provided from several sites; the report says “generally”, implying that exceptions might be acceptable;
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/M1005/A/14/2226553
and there is anyway no intention to introduce more detail into the Plan. In short, it is no part of the Council’s case to say that the proposal is objectionable simply because it would provide more than 50 dwellings. 22. The Council accepts that Crich is a sustainable location for some development; its objection is that what is proposed is not “limited” and thus goes beyond what is anticipated in emerging Policy SS1. The Inspector examining the 2006 Local Plan said then that Crich was a sustainable location. The Inspector for the emerging Core Strategy has said that the Council might look more widely for housing sites. Crich is a relatively large village with a good range of services and facilities. No one disagrees that it is a vibrant village. There is no objection from the relevant authorities that a development of the size proposed would put undue pressure on existing services or facilities (an education contribution having been agreed and included in the section 106 obligation); or that it would cause unacceptable traffic problems (especially given the proposed Travel Plan). 23. One strand of the Council’s objection is to what it sees as the relative lack of sustainable transport options. There are, however, several bus services, some of them with bus stops virtually at the proposed site access; they link Crich with Matlock and Alfreton (service 140), Ripley and Matlock (141), Belper and Alfreton (142) and Ripley, Ambergate and Belper (143/144). There is also a school service to and from Matlock and a university service to and from Buxton. The regular services may be 2-hourly but the overlap in destinations effectively means that there is an hourly bus to most of them. Services may not be as frequent as one might find in some urban areas – but not all urban areas will have a more regular service or bus stops within the same walking distances. What it comes down to is that the opportunities exist for sustainable transport modes to be taken up (as set out in para. 32 in the NPPF) for work, shopping and leisure purposes. Those opportunities may not be as great as in some urban areas but that is not entirely to the point – because an assessment of sustainability ranges far wider than transport choices and each case must be assessed on its merits. 24. It is nevertheless true that there would be considerable reliance on travel using the private car, whether for work, shopping or leisure. The forecast reliance on the private car would, however, be very similar to existing travel patterns elsewhere in Amber Valley, including in the main settlements. Thus, the difference in Crich will lie primarily in the lengths of journeys to be undertaken, generally longer but, given the compact nature of the District, perhaps not so much longer as to tip the balance in an overall assessment of sustainability. 25. It may also be noted that the NPPF accepts that some housing will be acceptable in rural areas. Para. 54 says that some market housing might facilitate the provision of affordable housing (the subject of the third main issue), para. 55 that new housing located to enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities may promote sustainable development. 26. In principle, therefore, there is no compelling objection to housing development in Crich. It is recognised as a sustainable location, it is a vibrant village with good services and facilities and the opportunities exist for the use of sustainable transport modes to centres elsewhere. An assessment of sustainability must also, however, test the proposed development against the specific nature and character of Crich itself.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/M1005/A/14/2226553
Location and scale of the proposed development in relation to Crich 27. Crich has developed broadly along a north-south axis, determined partly by the topography, partly by transport routes (themselves influenced by the topography) and partly by the existence and expansion of Hilts Quarry to its east. The early village was essentially linear – and that is still apparent today. Housing built since the mid-20th century has extended the village on its west side but the topography has tended to restrict how far expansion could go. No significant development has been possible on the east side of the village because of the extent of Hilts Quarry and the steep downward slope of the land to the south-east, between the quarry and the village axis. Looking at a map, therefore, the appeal site appears somewhat divorced from the village and its historic development pattern because of the intervening presence of Hilts Quarry. It can also be said that the eventual total of up to 113 dwellings on the appeal site would represent a development much larger than anything that has hitherto taken place as a single development in Crich. 28. The impression is somewhat different on the ground. Leaving Crich eastwards on Roes Lane (the B5035), one passes the residential cul-de-sac of Hillcrest on the south and a row of houses on the north side. The appeal site is separated from the cul-de-sac only by the (substantial) domestic curtilage of 10 Hillcrest; the houses on the north side of Roes Lane would overlap the north-western corner of the appeal site. Looking westwards from around Park Head, the proposed housing, especially given time for appropriate landscaping to grow and mature, would be seen very much as are the existing buildings in Crich – as a roofscape within the landscape. Development would represent significant change, both along Roes Lane (within and outside the village) and from where it would be seen from the east. Change does not automatically mean harm, however. The Council offered no objection to the visual impact of the proposal, its Landscape Manager being content that that could be dealt with at reserved matters stage. That may be considered a sound conclusion. 29. Although Hilts Quarry extends over a large area and has been capped at a level around 30m below the appeal site, one is simply unaware of it when within or around the village (save in those properties which back on to it). There is dense tree growth all around it, mainly just within its boundaries. There is no impression, as one moves from the Market Place up Bowns Hill and turns right along Roes Lane to the appeal site, of moving around such a large hole in the ground. One has to know it is there to work out the relationship between it, the appeal site and centre of the village. Thus, while it is obvious on a map, Hilts Quarry offers no visual reason for arguing that the appeal site would be divorced from the village. 30. On the contrary, if one looks at the physical relationship between the two, development on the appeal site would be seen as a clear extension of the village but as one convenient for the services and facilities it offers. Despite the contours, an unhurried walk of 7½ minutes took me from the Market Place to a point equivalent of the centre of the proposed development, perhaps a little beyond. That equates closely with the Council’s estimate of a 20-minute round trip. Manual for Streets says that “Walkable neighbourhoods are typically characterised by having a range of facilities within 10 minutes’ (up to about 800m) walking distance … [although] … this is not an upper limit”. The appellant tabulates that the majority of shops and services within Crich
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/M1005/A/14/2226553
(including the medical centre and the infants and junior schools) are less than 700m from the centre of the appeal site. 31. There can be no real doubt, despite being an expansion of Crich in a new direction, and despite the presence of Hilts Quarry, that the proposed development would be a sustainable extension of the village with no harmful visual impact that could not be overcome at reserved matters stage. That leaves consideration of the scale of the proposal in relation to the village’s existing pattern of development. 32. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) records the population of the Parish of Crich, which includes Whatstandwell and Fritchley as well as Crich, as 2,898 in 2011. Crich Ward excludes a small eastern part of the Parish and is recorded as having a population of 2,401. An addition of 113 houses would represent an increase of just over 11% for the Parish. The figure would be greater, perhaps around 16%, for the village of Crich itself. It may be compared with the increase of about 8% between 2001 and 2011 but, in simple numerical terms, it is not so great an increase as automatically to be harmful. 33. Nor would the houses come all at once. The appellant estimates delivery at 25-30 market houses per annum. If 30% affordable housing were provided on-site, that would represent a delivery period of 2½-3 years. The lead-in time, given the need to sell the site to a house-builder, gain approval of reserved matters, get a contractor on-site and complete the first house, could not be expected to be less than three years. Thus, it would be over six years before the development was completed. The percentage increase in the number of houses has to be viewed over that period of time. 34. The end-result would effectively be a single housing estate. Visually, however, as indicated above, the scale of development would not cause any significant harm in views from the east. Also, the proposed open space at roughly the mid-point of the Roes Lane frontage, and the substantial mature tree to be retained there, would give noticeable visual relief along that road and would tend to reduce the apparent overall scale of the development. 35. The enlargement of Crich might not be unduly great proportionally – but what would be the effect of 113 new households for the vitality and vibrancy of Crich? There is an indication, though little more than that, of a slightly ageing population structure, both in Crich over time and also in relation to the rest of the Borough; to the extent that that is so, the proposed development would tend to offset the trend. The average house price in Crich is about 38% higher than the Borough average, which suggests that affordability in Crich must be worse than elsewhere in the Borough; the proposed development would tend to widen the range of housing available for sale. Those may not be telling arguments in themselves – but there are other factors. 36. All are agreed that Crich is a vibrant, thriving village. It has infant and junior schools, with secondary education provided at Alfreton. There are no capacity problems at the infant or secondary schools and the Education Authority is content with a financial contribution towards improving junior school capacity. There is no suggestion from the Health Authority that additional population would put undue pressure on the surgery in Crich, which is reported as accepting new patients. Nor is it at all likely that undue pressure would be placed on the shops and other services and facilities in the village; indeed, it is easier to argue that the additional population from 113 dwellings would tend to support their vitality and viability. Lastly, there is no reason to think
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/M1005/A/14/2226553
that the development would be akin to a gated community. Accessibility to the village could only encourage residents to make use of what it has to offer and thus to become involved in village activities; and the location on a public footpath would likely mean other people walking through the development. 37. The Council suggests that the proposed development would effectively destroy the historic pattern of Crich. That is not really so. The depth of development to the west, beyond the original linear pattern, is plain to see, even if it has become integrated into the village. The historic linear pattern is nevertheless evident in the designated the Conservation Area. That will remain; indeed, there is the potential for enhancement in visual and activity terms by having 113 additional dwellings on one of the three main routes out of the village. Overall assessment of sustainability 38. The NPPF says that there are three dimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental – and that, because they are mutually dependent, they should not be assessed in isolation. 39. There would be economic benefits in terms of construction spending of around £13 million, supporting the equivalent of 65 full-time construction jobs over some 3-4 years; 113 houses would provide for around 170 economically active residents; and additional household spending would support some ten additional full-time jobs. It may be argued that that would be so for housing development anywhere in the Borough – but some of the construction jobs would likely go to people living in Crich; some of the economically active residents would work in Crich, even if at home (nowadays around 14%); and a not insignificant amount of household spending would be in Crich and would support additional jobs in the village or, at the least, support those that already exist. 40. There would be social benefits from the ability of the new housing to attract people at all stages of life, tending both to enhance the demographic mix and balance of the community and to at least sustain, if not enhance, the vibrancy of the village. There would also, subject to consideration of the third issue below, be benefits from the provision of affordable housing, enabling people with existing connections to stay within (or return to) the community. 41. There would be environmental advantages and disadvantages. The loss to housing of a greenfield site would be an environmental loss – but the Council accepts that the proposed housing could be satisfactorily accommodated within the landscape and that, with appropriate landscaping and open space, there would be a net ecological/biodiversity benefit. About 1.5 hectares of the site is grade 3a agricultural land, amongst the best and most versatile; the loss of such a small area should not, however, weigh significantly in the balance. Also to be added into that balance are the potential physical benefits to the character and appearance of the village, which would flow from some of the social benefits identified above, principally the support for or enhancement of the services and facilities within the village. 42. Overall, therefore, there would be economic and social benefits and, at worst, a neutral position environmentally. Accordingly, the proposed development must be considered sustainable in the terms of the NPPF. Conclusion on the first main issue 43. Saved Policies EN1 and H5 from the Amber Valley Local Plan 2006 may be considered “policies for the supply of housing” in terms of para. 49 of the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/M1005/A/14/2226553
NPPF; and they are out-of-date for the purposes of para. 14, there being well short of a 5-year supply of deliverable housing land in the Borough. Paras. 49 and 14 come into play and planning permission should be granted for sustainable development unless “any adverse impacts of doing so significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits”. 44. Saved Policy LS1 remains broadly consistent with the thrust of the NPPF on sustainability and attracts weight accordingly. In broad terms, Crich is accepted as a sustainable location for some new housing – the question to be answered is “how much”? 45. The appellant accepts conflict with part of criterion (c) of LS1 in that the loss to housing of a greenfield site cannot be said to protect or enhance the quality of the natural environment. On the other hand, the Council concedes that landscape and visual impact can be resolved at reserved matters stage. Once established, the proposed development would not be seen as incongruous or unduly intrusive in the wider landscape. 46. On criterion (a), the proposal might not appear particularly well-related to existing development when looking at a map; it would be an expansion in a new direction (save for Hillcrest and the houses on the north side of the B5035). On the ground, however, it would appear to be a logical extension of the village, within comfortable walking distance of its centre and its numerous services and facilities. 47. On criterion (d) the development would fail to minimise the need to travel only in the relative sense of perhaps being a greater distance from some of the main urban areas. Set against that, it would certainly offer opportunities for journeys other than by private car. 48. Overall, the proposed development would bring economic and social benefits, some of them directly to Crich, and the environmental impact would be no worse than neutral; it must be considered sustainable in terms of its scale and location. Subject to consideration of the second main issue, therefore, the presumption in para. 14 of the NPPF should apply. Second main issue – pollution 49. Hilts Quarry was used by Rolls Royce to dispose of low-level radioactive waste. The tip has been capped and is required to be monitored by Rolls Royce under the watchful eye of the Environmental Agency. Reason for refusal no. 2 was because the Council considered there to be insufficient information on potential contamination to allow a determination. Since that time, additional information has been provided and the Council has consulted upon it, enabling it to withdrawal the reason for refusal. 50. Local people, however, and particularly the Keep Crich a Village Action Group (KCAV) have considerable concerns about the potential of the development either to result in unacceptable living conditions for its residents or to cause harm to the wider environment, including Crich itself, or both. They are also concerned about potential pollution from the former landfill site at Old Quarry, a little to the east of the appeal site. 51. So far as Hilts Quarry is concerned, none of the expert or responsible bodies consider that there is even slight potential for a problem. Rolls Royce is responsible for the site’s integrity and would be susceptible to claims of liability if a risk to residents on the appeal site did exist; advised by SLR Consulting, it has not objected. The Environmental Agency, the expert
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/M1005/A/14/2226553
nuclear regulator, has consistently said, and recently explicitly confirmed, that it has no concerns and does not think there is a credible risk of a criticality (an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction) occurring. Peter Brett Associates, for the appellant, provided information to the Council to support the lack of risk. The Council consulted Public Health England, whose response agreed with the Environmental Agency’s conclusion and saw nothing to suggest that any contamination of the appeal site could have occurred from radionuclides disposed of in the quarry. In short, no plausible pollution linkage was seen to exist, whether from fugitive dust emissions or the migration of radiological isotopes; and construction of the proposed development would not create a pollution linkage where none currently existed. 52. The reasoning behind these various views takes various factors into account. The quarry has been capped at a level some 30m below that of the appeal site. The geology of the appeal site includes, above that level, a minimum depth of 14m (and up to 29.5m) of boulder clay, considered impermeable, or virtually so; excavations for foundations and drainage would penetrate that stratum to a depth of no more than 2-3m. Data from the boreholes on the appeal site, in the quarry and around the outlet of the Fritchley Sough (a remnant from old lead mining days) into the Fritchley Brook together indicate nothing inconsistent with normal ranges for uranium concentrations. 53. There is evidence of uranium enrichment in the leachate data from the quarry, which is to be expected – but the concentrations are extremely small. The real issue is whether there is a plausible pathway to link the source (the quarry) with the receptor (the appeal site). There is no evidence for this, or on whether radioactive materials may be escaping from the quarry in significant amounts, or even at all. The Environmental Agency has no concerns on this score, or on the possibility of a criticality. 54. In one sense, arguments about pollution risk from the quarry and the possibility of a criticality are not necessarily relevant to the decision on this appeal. The key factors are the depth of impermeable material between the levels of the appeal site and the capped quarry and the fact that excavations for development would penetrate that by only two or three metres. That in itself seems sufficient for a conclusion that there is no significant risk of pollution on the appeal site, or of construction of the development causing wider environmental harm. If the conditions to cause pollution were to exist elsewhere, away from the appeal site, that would be for the Environment Agency to deal with, in association with Rolls Royce. 55. Rainwater infiltration as a result of the proposed development could not upset the present position. The surface water drainage proposals would capture run-off from the development and take it to a balancing pond in the south- east corner of the site from where it would drain at normal agricultural land run-off rates. In fact, the proposed sustainable drainage scheme is much more likely to improve the existing position than worsen it. 56. Nor is there any significant likelihood of development on the appeal site causing problems with the stability of the quarry face and thus upsetting the present position. For example, the illustrative sketch perspective in the Design and Access Statement shows only five dwellings anywhere near the site boundary with the quarry. Quite apart from distance, the constructional techniques available to ensure building stability would equally ensure no side effects at the quarry face.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10 Appeal Decision APP/M1005/A/14/2226553
57. There are also the questions of radon and of pollution from the Old Quarry landfill site. Radon has effectively nothing to do with Hilts Quarry. It occurs naturally in this area and the risk it poses is guarded against by methods secured by the Building Regulations. For landfill gas, monitoring over a year shows that no specific protection measures are required; even so, the required radon protection measures would guard against any landfill gas risk. The methane levels found in the quarry pose no risk unless they can migrate in significant quantity to the appeal site, which, on the evidence, they do not. 58. On this second main issue, therefore, the conclusion must be that there is no material risk from Hilts Quarry or Old Quarry of unsafe or unacceptable pollution either for residents of the proposed development or, as a result of construction, for the environment in the wider area. Third issue – affordable housing 59. The Council argued that affordable housing should be catered for by a financial contribution which would go towards provision in the main urban areas rather than on-site. That may be an understandable position when the thrust of the emerging Core Strategy is to concentrate development in those main urban areas, less so when considered against the argument that there is no need for affordable housing in Crich. 60. The Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) sets out the affordable housing need in the Borough and in its three sub-areas. It identifies a 5-year need of 907 units in the Belper-Ripley sub-area over and above what would come from the extant land supply. The affordable housing in Crich, on the other hand, is argued as no more than 15, about 1.65% of the need in the sub-area; and that would be met by the development at Coast Hill, which the Council had resolved to approve subject to a section 106 obligation. The figure of 15 is argued as meeting the need identified in the 2007 Local Housing Needs survey for Crich, which it argues as not having changed significantly over time. There are several problems with that approach. 61. Firstly, a survey from 2007 must be considered out-of-date in 2015; there is no clear data to support the argument that need has not significantly changed. Secondly, that survey must be considered a snapshot in time, as the Council accepted, rather than any assessment of on-going need over a period of time. Thirdly, its conclusions were drawn from a 31% response rate to the questionnaire, substantial in itself but not proportionate to the make-up of the population – older age groups were over-represented and those in rented accommodation under-represented; and the broad assumption was made that those who did not respond had no affordable needs. Some 23% of respondents knew of someone who had had to move out of the parish but that seems not to have prompted any further analysis. 62. For the appellant, Mr Venning made two estimates, which he himself was quick to point out were speculative and could not properly be relied upon. The first, working down from the SHMA, estimated an affordable housing need in Crich of around 40 dwellings over five years; the second, seeking to allow for what he saw as the shortcomings of the 2007 Local Housing Needs survey, came to an estimate of 45. While both should be treated with great caution, it is notable that they come to not dissimilar conclusions. The appeal scheme and the Coast Hill development would together provide 49 affordable homes over a period of rather more than five years, consistent with either scenario.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11 Appeal Decision APP/M1005/A/14/2226553
63. The default position in the NPPF is that affordable housing should be provided on-site unless off-site provision or a financial contribution can be robustly justified. The appellant proposes on-site provision and the Council’s evidence fails to persuade that there is no need for the amount of affordable housing that would come forward. Overall conclusion 64. On the first main issue, the housing policies of the Development Plan are out- of-date, which brings paragraphs 49 and 14 into play. The proposed development is sustainable, indicating that planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of so doing would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal. 65. It may be that the emerging Core Strategy has been adopted and a 5-year housing land supply identified before the first house on the appeal site is occupied – but that does not outweigh the conclusion on sustainability, operation of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the exhortation in the NPPF to boost significantly the supply of housing. 66. On the second main issue, on which the potential for serious adverse impact was argued by KCAV and others, there is no material risk of pollution from either Hilts Quarry or Old Quarry. Other potential adverse impacts have been assessed in the context of the first main issue and the three dimensions of sustainability set out in the NPPF. On the third issue, the evidence does not robustly justify the provision of affordable housing other than on-site. 67. Accordingly, subject to appropriate conditions and the terms of the executed obligation, the appeal may be allowed and planning permission granted. Obligation 68. The executed obligation provides for an education contribution, a travel plan monitoring contribution, the management and maintenance of the open space and for affordable housing by one of three options. The conclusion above being that affordable housing should be provided solely on-site, Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the obligation applies and Parts 3 and 4 do not. The education and travel plan monitoring contributions were agreed in negotiations with the Council, which submitted Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (CIL) Compliance Schedules for both. It also submitted a Compliance Schedule for the affordable housing contribution, though addressing only the off-site and hybrid options, not the on-site option. All of the obligations comply with CIL Regulation 122 in that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and fairly related to it in scale and kind. Conditions 69. Suggested conditions were discussed at the inquiry in the light of my written comments and queries on them. In the first instance, there is a preference for model or standard conditions, adapted as necessary to suit the particular circumstances, and certain of the suggestions may be modified for clarity or precision. Bearing that in mind, the suggested conditions on reserved matters, the access road junction with Roes Lane (identifying the approved drawing), the footpath along Roes Lane, the provision of relevant access roads before occupation of any dwelling, construction methodology, noise protection, decontamination, tree protection, foul and surface water drainage and ecological protection are all both reasonable and necessary in the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 12 Appeal Decision APP/M1005/A/14/2226553
interests of achieving a satisfactory standard of development. Given the passage of time, an updating of the badger survey would be appropriate. From the paucity of potential from the submitted archaeological information, a watching brief condition would be more appropriate than a trial investigation. 70. In addition, a condition is necessary to secure the proposed travel plan and a landscaping condition would be appropriate to supplement the reserved matters and suggested tree protection conditions. John L Gray Inspector
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 13 Appeal Decision APP/M1005/A/14/2226553
APPEARANCES
FOR AMBER VALLEY DISTRICT COUNCIL Andrew Hogan, of Counsel instructed by Paul Benski, Solicitor to the Council. He called Jeremy Dickinson BA(Hons) Housing Strategy Officer with the Council. Derek Stafford BA(Hons) MRTPI Assistant Director (Planning and Regeneration) with the Council.
FOR GLADMAN DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Martin Carter, of Counsel Instructed by Laurie Lane, Planning Manager, Gladman Developments Limited. He called Nigel Weeks BSc FACE Director, Stirling Maynard Transportation Consultants. George Venning MA Associate Director, Levvel Limited. Robert Hindle BSc(Hons) MRICS Director, Rural Solutions Limited. Richard Puttock BSc MSc FGS Partner, Peter Brett Associates. Nicholas Folland BA(Hons) DipLA Director, Barnes Walker Limited. CMLI Laurie Lane BSc(Hons) MRTPI Planning Manager, Gladman Developments Limited.
INTERESTED PERSONS John Bettison } Kevin Oliver } Keep Crich a Village Action Group (KCAV) Len Jones } Jim Gray } Cllr Gareth Gee Member for Crich Ward. Cllr Margaret Lane Chair of Crich Parish Council.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 14 Appeal Decision APP/M1005/A/14/2226553
DOCUMENTS submitted during the inquiry
1 1 – letter of notification (23/10/2014) of appeal; 2 – letter of notification (16/1/2015) of inquiry, with distribution list; 3 – newspaper advertisement (20/5/2015). 2 Extract from Planning Practice Guidance (re. housing needs assessments). 3 Draft section 106 obligation. 4 Hand-drawn plan (submitted by KCAV) showing footway widths in Roes Lane and Bowns Hill. 5 KCAV presentation to the inquiry. 6 Jim Gray’s response to Peter Brett Associates’ reply to third party comments. 7 Cllr Gee’s statement. 8 Note from Pauline and Roger Cowen. 9 Copy of Letter of 16/2/2015 from Public Health England. 10 CIL Compliance Schedules for: 1 – affordable housing contribution; 2 – education contribution; 3 – travel plan monitoring fee. 11 High Court Judgements: 1 – [2015] EWHC 410 (Admin); 2 – [2015] EWHC 425 (Admin); 3 - [2015] EWHC 925 (Admin). 12 Copy of executed section 106 obligation. Also CD58 Policy SS12 of the emerging Core Strategy, as proposed to be modified. CD59 Planning permission ref. 394/199 for the domestic use of land to the east of 10 Hillcrest, Crich. CD60 Committee report for application ref. AVA/2014/0678 for the development of land to the rear of Coast Hill, Crich, for 15 affordable dwellings and 3 market-sale bungalows. CD61 Affordable housing delivery in Amber Valley, 2008/09-2014/15.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 15 Appeal Decision APP/M1005/A/14/2226553
APPEAL REF. APP/M1005/A/14/2226553 LAND AT ROES LANE, CRICH, DERBYSHIRE, DE4 5DH
Schedule of conditions attached to planning permission
1) Details of the 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 and the development shall be carried out as approved. 2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission. 3) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. 4) Development shall not begin until full details of the junction between the proposed access road and Roes Lane, including visibility splays, and including a footway on the south side of Roes Lane between the junction and Hillcrest, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the junction and footway have been constructed in accordance with the approved details. 5) Development shall not begin until full details of the access roads and footpaths within the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the means of vehicular and pedestrian access serving it has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. 6) The landscape reserved matter referred to in condition 1 above shall include full details of both hard and soft landscape works, including: proposed finished levels or contours; areas of open space; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (such as furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting); proposed functional services above and below ground (such as drainage, power and communications cables and pipelines); planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants (noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities as appropriate); biodiversity enhancement measures (including bat and bird boxes); and the identification of all trees and hedgerows to be retained (within and on the boundaries of the site) together with measures for their protection during the course of the works. 7) The details of hard and soft landscape works shall be accompanied by implementation and management programmes. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and implementation programme. 8) Development shall not begin until full details of a sustainable surface water drainage scheme, together with a future management and maintenance plan for it, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters. No dwelling shall be occupied
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 16 Appeal Decision APP/M1005/A/14/2226553
until the scheme has been implemented in accordance with the approved details. 9) Development shall not begin until full details of foul drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the scheme has been implemented in accordance with the approved details. 10) Development shall not begin until: a strategy for investigating contamination present on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; an investigation has been carried out in accordance with the approved strategy; and a written report, detailing the findings of the investigation, assessing the risk posed to receptors by contamination and a proposing remediation scheme, including a programme for implementation, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; Remediation work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved remediation scheme and programme. Remediation work on contamination not identified in the initial investigation but found during construction work shall be carried out in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority subsequent to its discovery. 11) If any materials are to be imported in order to raise or fill any part of the site, evidence shall be provided to show that they are free from contamination. 12) All noise-sensitive dwellings on the site, as identified in the acoustic report by Wardell Armstrong dated 9 July 2014, shall be protected from noise operations at the Old Quarry such that the following noise levels are not exceeded:
50dB LAeq 1 hour in outdoor living areas between 07:00 and 23:00 hours;
35dB LAeq I hour inside living rooms and bedrooms between 07:00 and 23:00 hours;
40dB LAeq 1 hour inside dining rooms/areas between 07:00 and 23:00 hours;
30dB LAeq 5mins in bedrooms between 23:00 and 07:00 hours. Development shall not begin until details of noise mitigation measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 13) No development shall take place until a construction method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period and shall provide for: i) no construction works or deliveries to and from the site outside the hours of 08:00-18:00 on weekdays, 08:00-13:00 on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or public holidays ii) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; iii) the loading and unloading of plant and materials; iv) the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; v) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; vi) wheel washing facilities;
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 17 Appeal Decision APP/M1005/A/14/2226553
vii) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction and from vehicles entering or leaving the site; viii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from construction works; ix) no burning of materials on-site; x) measures for the control of works causing noise or vibration. 14) No development shall take place until a construction environmental management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction period and shall provide for: i) the identification of biodiversity features to be protected during the course of construction; ii) a risk assessment of construction activities potentially damaging to biodiversity features; iii) measures to protect biodiversity features to be retained; iv) the timing of potentially damaging works to avoid harm to biodiversity features to be retained; v) no removal of existing hedgerows, trees or shrubs between 1 March and 31 August in any year; and vi) measures to ensure ecological supervision. 15) Development shall not begin until a survey to update the badger survey incorporated in the fpcr Ecological Appraisal dated March 2014 and the update of 3 July 2014, together with appropriate mitigation proposals, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved mitigation proposals. 16) The developer shall afford access at all reasonable times to any archaeologist nominated by the local planning authority and shall allow that person to observe the excavations and record items of interest and finds. 17) No dwelling shall be occupied until a Travel Plan, broadly in accordance with the Stirling Maynard Framework Travel Plan dated June 2014, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Travel Plan shall include a programme for implementation, monitoring, regular review and improvement and shall subsequently be implemented, maintained and developed as approved.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 18