Appeal Decision Inquiry Sessions Held on 8 and 9 July 2015

Appeal Decision Inquiry sessions held on 8 and 9 July 2015. Closed in writing on 23 July 2015. Site visit made on 9 July 2015 by Robert Mellor BSc DipTRP DipDesBEnv DMS MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 15 September 2015

Appeal Ref: APP/M1710/W/15/3004843 Land north of 102 Downhouse Road, Catherington, Hampshire PO8 0TY  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Southcott Homes Ltd against the decision of East Hampshire District Council.  The application Ref 25288/001, dated 26 June 2014, was refused by notice dated 29 January 2015.  The development proposed is a residential development of 26 dwellings including open market and affordable dwellings, landscaping and public open spaces, access, and associated engineering works.

This decision is issued in accordance with Section 56(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) and supersedes the decision issued on 11 August 2015

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural Matters

2. The application described the site as ‘Land at 102-120 Downhouse Road, Catherington, Hampshire’. However it does not include any part of the curtilages of the existing dwellings at Nos 102 and 120. The Council therefore used the revised site description ‘Land north of 102 Downhouse Road, Catherington, Waterlooville (Horndean Parish)’. The appeal form gives a grid reference of Easting 469461 and Northing 115949.

Application for costs

3. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by Southcott Homes Ltd against East Hampshire District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Policy Context

4. The appeal is required to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan here includes the East Hampshire Local Plan Joint Core Strategy 2014 (the JCS) and the saved policies of the East Hampshire Local Plan Second Review 2006 (the LP).

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

5. The Council has recently submitted for examination a Housing and Employment Allocations document which is not yet part of the development plan. The housing sites proposed in that document do not include the appeal site and no changes are proposed to the Settlement Policy Boundary in this vicinity. However those matters are the subject of objections. The allocations and boundaries may change before the document is adopted as part of the development plan. The document therefore merits only limited weight.

6. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the supporting national Planning Practice Guidance (the NPPG) are important material considerations.

Main Issues

7. Having regard to the development plan and to other material considerations the main issues are considered to be:

(a) Would the proposal accord with the provisions of the development plan in respect of the protection of the countryside?

(b) Would the proposal accord with the provisions of the development plan in respect of the separation of settlements?

• Is there a 5 year supply of housing as defined in national policy (paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework)?

• If there is not a 5 year supply, and if the policies for housing supply are consequently out of date, would this be a sustainable development, or would any adverse impacts of the development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole (Paragraphs 14 and 49 of the Framework)?

(d) Would the proposed development make adequate provision for supporting infrastructure and for affordable housing?

Reasons

(a) Protection of the Countryside

8. What were originally the small separate villages of Horndean, Catherington and Clanfield have been expanded as the result of considerable, mainly residential, development in the 20th century. Expansion has continued in the 21st century. The area around the appeal site has a semi-rural landscape character in that smaller or larger blocks and groups of suburban residential development are interspersed with areas of open farmland or other open space and are surrounded by more open rural farmland.

9. To manage built development, Settlement Policy Boundaries are defined on the Policies Map. The Clanfield Inset to the LP Policies Map covers the relevant area. The map key does not identify the relevant policy but the parties do not dispute that the current boundaries were those defined for the purposes of saved LP Policy H14. Development outside those boundaries is by definition in the countryside.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

10. The appeal site is in Catherington which is part of Horndean Parish. The Settlement Policy Boundary in the Catherington area comprises several separate groups of buildings. Clanfield is a separate parish but there are places where built development in the 2 parishes adjoins other built development across the parish boundary. Indeed the main settlement policy boundary for Clanfield incorporates substantial areas of housing that are within Horndean parish and the shops at the functional centre of the settlement are on the parish boundary.

11. In the vicinity of the appeal site the parish boundary with Clanfield lies along Drift Road - a little to the north of the appeal site and beyond the nearest group of Catherington dwellings. The Settlement Policy Boundary defining the latter group closely adjoins the main Settlement Policy Boundary for Clanfield which runs along the opposite side of Drift Road.

12. The appeal site adjoins Settlement Policy Boundaries both to the north and south but is itself in the countryside, as is the adjoining land to the east and west. The countryside to the west across Downhouse Road is within the South Downs National Park.

13. As a strategic document the JCS did not review or amend the Settlement Policy Boundaries. However JCS Policy CP19 ‘Development in the Countryside’ is relevant to the boundaries as currently defined. It sets out a policy of ‘… general restraint in order to protect the countryside for its own sake. The only development allowed in the countryside will be that with a genuine and proven need for a countryside location, such as that necessary for farming, forestry, or other rural enterprises.’ The Appellant has not made any case that the development is needed for farming, forestry or for any other rural enterprise or activity.

14. It is concluded that there is therefore a literal conflict with JCS Policy CP19 and with the similar LP Policy H14. Whether there is also a conflict with the underlying objectives of Policy CP19 is less straightforward.

15. The policy objective to: ‘protect the countryside for its own sake’ needs qualification. According to dictionary definitions the phrase ‘for its own sake’ may simply mean that an activity is interesting or enjoyable and does not necessarily serve any greater purpose. However in this case the reasoned justification at JCS paragraph 7.6 explains that: ‘Inappropriate types and scales of development will not be permitted in order to maintain the landscape character and quality of the countryside.’ That would seem to be the true objective and it is a matter of public interest. It would be consistent with a core planning principle at paragraph 17 of the Framework which includes to recognise: ‘the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside’.

16. The District Council has not claimed any specific harm to landscape character or quality or provided any evidence to that effect. Although this was described as a key issue in the officer report, no harm to the landscape character of the countryside was identified there. The Statement of Common Ground between the District Council and the Appellant stated at 3.2 that: ‘The scheme is capable of being readily assimilated into the environment within which it is proposed without causing material harm to the prevailing character and appearance of the surrounding area.’

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

17. In relation to the adjoining South Downs National Park there was a comment in the officer report that the suburban character of the development would dilute the rural setting of the National Park, contrary to criterion (b) of JCS Policy CP29. However that was not given as a reason for refusal and no further evidence has been submitted to substantiate that comment at the appeal stage. Rather it was concluded in the officer report that there would be no harm to views from the National Park, mainly on the grounds that the development would occupy a modest gap between existing buildings and would be seen in that context.

18. The Appellant submitted a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which concluded that the site has low landscape sensitivity, medium visual sensitivity, low landscape value, and medium high landscape capacity for development on the basis that development would not be intrusive in the wider landscape. Those conclusions have not been contested by the District Council. For the appeal the Appellant has provided a further written statement of landscape and visual evidence. That statement refutes any harm to landscape character, visual amenity, or the setting of the National Park.

19. The appeal site is an undeveloped field that is partially surrounded by a mature hedge which contains some trees. As an open field within a frontage of ribbon housing development it makes a modest contribution to the rural element of the area’s semi-rural character. The site was included in the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2013 with potential for 37 dwellings. It is described there as a gap within ribbon development along Downhouse Road. It continues ‘The impact of housing on this site would not be unduly obtrusive and if undertaken behind the existing hedgerow would be largely screened in views from the road’.

20. In the appeal scheme a hedge along the frontage is proposed to be retained except where a new access is formed. Existing gaps in the hedge would be filled. Some scrub and trees in the south west corner would be removed but a line of trees along the southern boundary would be retained. To make efficient use of a greenfield site the development would be in depth and at a higher density than the existing housing to the north and south which features the long gardens that are typical of mid 20th century ribbon development.

21. Whilst some landscape features would therefore be retained the development would replace the open field with built development. There would be an inevitable change in landscape character within the site from an open field that contributes to the open semi-rural character of the surrounding area to a built- up and suburban character. However the effect on the character and visual amenity of the wider area would be substantially mitigated in that: the area is already a mix of rural and suburban characteristics; the development would directly adjoin existing suburban development on 2 sides with a relatively short frontage within a long strip of frontage development; and the retained landscape features would further moderate the visual impact and perceived landscape change, particularly as seen from the west within the National Park.

22. Whilst the harm to the countryside would thus be mitigated to a degree, it is concluded that there would nevertheless be some residual harm to the objectives of Policy CP23 to support the literal conflict with the policy wording. There would also be slight harm to the setting of the National Park although that would not on its own warrant dismissal. Whether or not that harm would

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

be more or less than for any other proposed housing allocation in the emerging allocations document is not for me to determine.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

(b) Separation of Settlements

23. The appeal site and the land to the east are within a Local Gap as defined on the Policies Map and referred to in JCS Policy CP23. The Local Gaps are longstanding policies that were only partially reviewed for the JCS, which added one new gap. Policy CP23 is not a policy for the protection of countryside landscape or character but it seeks to keep gaps undeveloped so as to prevent coalescence and to retain the separate identity of settlements. It nevertheless would allow some development in the gaps if it would meet stated criteria that in summary: (a) it would not undermine physical or visual separation; or (b) compromise the integrity of the gap (whether individually or cumulatively); and (c) could not be located elsewhere.

24. The officer’s report concluded that the overall integrity of the gap would not be compromised and that there would not be coalescence of distinct settlements. Site specific factors were said to limit the extent that the development would undermine visual separation. Whether the development could be located elsewhere was not directly addressed by the report. The report nevertheless concluded that the proposal was not in conflict with CP23 and that was therefore not a reason for refusal. However Horndean Parish Council considers that the proposal fails all 3 criteria of Policy CP23 and that the gap should be retained.

25. The settlements of Catherington, Clanfield and Horndean already adjoin each other in parts and thus do not have completely separate physical identities. The defined Local Gaps generally serve to separate blocks of built development both within and between these settlements and prevent the coalescence of these blocks into a single urban area. When seeking areas for a large expansion the parish councils report a local preference for development on the outer eastern edge of Horndean rather than within these gaps.

26. The appeal site may be distinguished from other parts of the Local Gap by its relatively small size as a proportion of that area and by its location in a narrow gap between two ribbons of housing which are both parts of Catherington, albeit that the northern group abuts Clanfield. Development within the gap would join two separate groups of Catherington dwellings, one of which is already joined to Clanfield.

27. I therefore agree with the District Council that development would cause only limited harm in terms of physical and visual separation (which would nevertheless literally conflict with Policy CP23) and that it would not compromise the integrity of the gap. Whether the development could or could not be ‘located elsewhere’ as required by CP23(c) is related to wider housing supply considerations.

28. It is not disputed that Policy CP19 is a relevant policy for the supply of housing. It is a material consideration that Paragraph 49 of the Framework provides that: ‘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.’ In that context paragraph 14 of the Framework provides amongst other things that where relevant policies are out of date planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework policies as a whole.

29. JCS Policy CP1 also makes similar provision to paragraph 14 of the Framework when relevant policies are out of date. However the JCS does not seek to define what would make a policy out of date.

30. The Appellant considers that the Settlement Policy Boundaries are out of date and should be set aside on the basis either that:

(i) they were defined using an evidence base which is now out of date in respect of the identified need for housing, and the Local Plan is incomplete because the boundaries have not yet been reviewed to accommodate housing to meet that increased need; or

(ii) the Council currently lacks the 5 year supply of suitable and deliverable sites that is required by paragraph 47 of the Framework to address housing needs and which should include a 20% buffer (brought forward from later in the Plan period) in circumstances where there has been persistent under-delivery of housing as the Appellant claims.

The Council disputes both that it lacks a 5 year supply and also whether there has been persistent under-delivery in the past. If there has not been persistent under-delivery the necessary buffer required by the Framework would be reduced from 20% to 5%.

Argument (i) and Policy CP1

31. In relation to argument (i) above and Policy CP1, the current Settlement Policy Boundaries were first defined at a time when the housing requirement for East Hampshire was set by the Hampshire Structure Plan. With the adoption of the South East Plan in 2009 the annual housing requirement was reduced with effect from 2006 onwards. However, with the identification of objectively assessed housing needs in 2013 (by means of a Strategic Housing Market Assessment – SHMA) and the subsequent adoption in 2014 of the JCS, the annual housing requirement for the period from 2011 onwards has since been more than doubled when compared to the South East Plan requirement.

32. It is not disputed between the parties that the total JCS requirement for housing is now incapable of being met within the existing Settlement Policy Boundaries as defined in the 2006 LP. However the JCS itself provides that the separate Housing and Employment Allocations document and Neighbourhood Plans will identify sufficient sites, and that where these are outside existing Settlement Policy Boundaries then those boundaries will be amended to accommodate the additional housing. The JCS also provides for the preparation of a separate Development Management document which will further review the Settlement Policy Boundaries and the Local Gap policies. In the meantime, and pending the examination and adoption of the Site Allocations Plan and Neighbourhood Plans, the Council has been seeking to create a sufficient 5 year supply of housing sites by allowing some development outside existing Settlement Policy Boundaries, including through the temporary use of an Interim Housing Policy Statement (IHPS - now withdrawn).

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

Lovedean Lane Appeal

33. The Appellant refers to the appeal decision concerning Lovedean Lane, which is in the same parish as the present appeal site1. In that case in November 2014 planning permission had been refused for a housing development on residential amenity grounds. At that time the Council acknowledged that it lacked a 5- year housing supply and the IHPS was in operation. Consequently it did not also refuse planning permission on the basis that the development was outside the Settlement Policy Boundary.

34. The Council explained that proofs of evidence for that appeal had been submitted before a 5-year housing supply was established in January 2015. The Council considered that it was then too late in the process to add an additional reason for refusal in relation to the SPB or to dispute the principle of housing development at that location. Whilst the Inspector was presented with up to date information on housing supply at the Inquiry in February 2015, this was not dealt with as a main issue. The Inspector explicitly did not determine whether a 5 year housing supply existed. Neither did she comment on whether any development plan policies were out of date. She dismissed the appeal but on residential amenity grounds only. However she did comment that the agreement between the Council and the Appellant that this was a ‘sustainable location’ for development weighed against the conflict with Policy CP19.

35. In the Statement of Common Ground for the current appeal the Appellant and the Council similarly agreed that this would be a ‘sustainable location’ for the development. However I consider that this falls short of a conclusion that this is overall a ‘sustainable development’ as defined in the Framework or as translated into JCS Policy CP1. That has a wider meaning than location since it requires consideration of all relevant provisions of the Framework or the development plan. These would include matters such as consideration of the character of the countryside. In the present appeal the agreement in relation to a sustainable location is one material consideration. But that is not the test set by the development plan or the Framework and it does not here outweigh the agreed conflict with Policy CP19.

Conclusions on Policy CP1

36. In the present appeal I do not consider that Policy CP19 or the other relevant JCS and LP policies are out of date for the purposes of Policy CP1 by reason of the age of the evidence base. LP Policy H14 remains a saved policy. The boundaries it defines are those to which Policy CP19 applies until such time as they are amended or replaced. The JCS was adopted as recently as 2014 when the JCS was found sound including in its approach to a Local Plan made up of separate strategy, allocations and development management documents. The Council has used the IHPS to address the interim housing supply issue. It has set the Settlement Policy Boundary aside where necessary on a case by case basis in order to create a supply of sites. To conclude in the alternative that all such boundaries are out of date would seriously undermine the plan-led system in East Hampshire and would risk severe harm to the objectives of local and national policy for the protection of the countryside which requires the prevention of uncontrolled sprawl. As the relevant policies are not out of date

1 Lovedean Lane APP/M1717/A/14/2229095 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

the presumption in favour of development set out in Policy CP1 does not have effect.

Argument (ii) and the Framework

37. Turning to argument (ii), the Framework at paragraph 49 does define relevant policies for the supply of housing as out of date where a 5 year housing supply is lacking. It is not disputed that such policies may include Settlement Policy Boundaries. The Appellant and the Council have produced a Statement of Common Ground on Housing Supply (Document 1A) which nevertheless includes significant areas of disagreement as follows:

 Whether an acknowledged backlog in housing supply since the start of the Local Plan period in 2011 should be addressed within 5 years (Sedgefield Method) or spread over the remaining Plan period (Liverpool Method).

 Whether there has been persistent under-delivery in the past such that a 20% buffer should be applied rather than a 5% buffer.

 Whether the housing requirement and housing supply set out in the Joint Core Strategy prepared by the Council and the South Downs National Park Authority should be disaggregated between the two areas.

 Whether the estimated supply contribution from 3 of the housing sites included in the Council’s calculated housing supply is deliverable within 5 years.

Lymington Bottom Road Appeal2

38. The Appellant has drawn attention to a recent housing appeal decision issued on 29 June 2015. That site is adjacent to Medstead in the north of the same District and similar matters were disputed. In that case the Inspector concluded that there was not a 5 year supply. This was calculated on the following basis:

 The Sedgefield method was applied because it is the Government’s preference as expressed in the NPPG.

 A 20% buffer was applied because of a record of persistent under- delivery.

 Housing requirements and supply were not disaggregated but were assessed for the whole District.

When assessed on that basis the District lacked a 5 year housing supply whether the Council’s or the Appellant’s figures for supply from 5 disputed sites were applied; the dispute concerning these sites was thus not considered further in the decision.

39. The Council’s supply calculation has been updated since the Inquiry for the above appeal and it now includes the 75 dwellings that were allowed then. However the Council is still considering whether to challenge that decision, especially in relation to the reasoning concerning persistent under-delivery and the 20% buffer.

2 Lymington Bottom Road, Medstead Ref APP/M1710/A/14/2225723 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

Liverpool vs Sedgefield

40. The Council points out that the JCS Inspector used the Liverpool method when addressing a housing shortfall. The Council also argues that its ability to bring supply forward is hampered in that a significant proportion of the supply in the JCS will come from the strategic Whitehill-Bordon site, which cannot be readily advanced. Indeed part of that site is one of the disputed sites which the Appellant considers may not come forward within 5 years. The NPPG encourages the Sedgefield method wherever possible. However, whilst the Appellant points out that the NPPG was published after the JCS hearings, it was published before the JCS Inspector’s Report was issued. There was therefore an opportunity for the Inspector to consider the declared preference for the Sedgefield method.

41. I consider that it is reasonable in the present appeal to use the Liverpool method on the basis that: the Sedgefield method is not mandatory in national policy or guidance; in a plan-led system it was used by the JCS Inspector; and because there are obstacles to readily advancing available housing sites in a District where the JCS supported significant reliance on a large strategic development at Whitehill-Bordon which is also intended to meet some of the housing needs of the National Park that covers more than half the District.

42. The Inspector who considered this issue at the Sussex Road appeal3 within the National Park also considered the Liverpool method to be appropriate having regard to the proportion of supply represented by Whitehill-Bordon, albeit in the context of a disaggregated approach to supply within the National Park to which Whitehill-Bordon would also contribute.

20% vs 5%

43. National policy requires consideration of previous delivery of housing. NPPG Paragraph 3-035-20140306 advises that ‘The assessment of a local delivery record is likely to be more robust if a longer term view is taken, since this is likely to take account of the peaks and troughs of the housing market cycle’. However national policy and guidance does not otherwise specify over what period delivery should be assessed or what figures should be used for comparison purposes. The same paragraph says that the approach to identifying persistent under-delivery involves questions of judgement and that the factors behind persistent under-delivery will vary from place to place. It is therefore to be expected that decision-makers will at times reach different conclusions according to what evidence is available and how arguments are presented.

44. In this case the Council agrees with the Appellant that there has been a shortfall in housing provision against JCS requirements in the 4 years since the start of the plan period in 2011. That is notwithstanding that the JCS figures were only adopted in the Plan in 2014. The Council argues that its record of housing delivery should be assessed according to what the requirement of the adopted development plan was at the relevant time. Thus whilst the backlog in provision remains to be addressed in the future, that under-provision from 2011 was in respect of a housing requirement that had not yet been adopted. The Appellant disagrees and considers that previous under-provision against a retrospective JCS target should count as under-delivery.

3 Appeal Ref APP/Y9507/A/14/2218678 30 October 2014 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

45. Even if the 2011-2015 period counts not just as retrospective under-provision but also as under-delivery, I do not consider that 4 years represents the ‘longer term’ advised by the NPPG, particularly given that the requirements are being applied retrospectively. Moreover the Inspector for the Lymington Bottom Road appeal did not explicitly conclude that these 4 years of under-delivery on their own demonstrated persistent delivery. However she went on to also consider the 2 previous years (2009-2011).

46. In 2009-2011 the South East Plan was still in legal force as part of the adopted development plan. It set a 260 dwellings per annum housing requirement for East Hampshire. The Appellant’s figures show that 538 dwellings were delivered in those 2 years which represents a small surplus over the SE Plan requirement (520 dwellings). Thus there was not under delivery against the requirements of the most up-to-date development plan requirement. It is true that in 2009 the Council decided to release some reserve sites in the Local Plan in order to maintain a 5 year supply for the future against the then development plan targets. But that does not mean that there was an acceptance of under-delivery at that time.

47. The Appellant points out that the SE Plan did not meet all housing needs within East Hampshire according to its own evidence base. However it did not seek to do so. Because it was a regional plan it allowed for the distribution of housing around the region. It was prepared before the national policy requirement to address housing needs more locally was introduced by the Framework in 2012. Nevertheless the Appellant considers that delivery in 2009-2011 should be assessed against a higher annual figure of 444 dwellings per annum in the period. This relates to higher assessments of need.

48. The Inspector for the Lymington Bottom Road appeal appears to have used a similar annual figure of 400 dwellings per annum for the period 2009-2011. This was based upon the 2008 population projections rather than the development plan requirement. However, as that period predated the Framework requirement to address objectively assessed housing needs locally, I do not judge that it is appropriate in this appeal to apply that requirement retrospectively when assessing the delivery of housing. Planning decisions in that period were being made legitimately according to a different development plan strategy and different national policy. That the JCS Inspector has in 2014 identified a higher minimum housing requirement does not affect my conclusions in relation to past delivery.

49. I conclude on the evidence before me that there has not been a record of persistent under-delivery and thus only a 5% buffer need to be applied.

Disaggregation

50. The Council has submitted a memo of understanding with the South Downs National Park Authority dated June 2015. This includes an agreed disaggregation of the JCS housing requirement between the authorities’ two planning jurisdictions within East Hampshire. That memo post-dated the Medstead Inquiry and would not have been before that Inspector.

51. The matter of disaggregation has also been considered at previous appeals when some Inspectors have supported that approach. However those appeals typically related to proposed developments within the National Park whereas the present appeal concerns land outside the National Park.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

52. The SDNPA is intending to replace the JCS within the National Park with its own Local Plan and to make separate provision for site allocations. Disaggregation will be necessary for that exercise. However that Plan is at an early stage and attracts little weight.

53. In the meantime it seems to me that the statutory purposes to conserve the natural beauty, wildlife and heritage of the Park, coupled with the duty to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities, together provide for a greater constraint on housing development within the SDNPA than in the remainder of the District. Indeed the JCS already provides that some of the housing needs of the National Park will be met outside the Park Boundary as part of the strategic Whitehill-Bordon development.

54. It follows that when shortfalls in housing provision arise they would more appropriately be addressed by increasing supply outside the SDNPA rather than within it. Disaggregation may be justified when assessing the capacity of the SDNPA to absorb additional development. However until such time as there are separate development plans it is more difficult to justify when considering development proposals outside the Park. I therefore agree with the Inspector for the Lymington Bottom Road appeal that housing supply should be considered on a District-wide basis, at least for appeals outside the Park area.

Disputed sites

55. At the Inquiry the disagreement between the Council and the Appellant as to the future delivery of sites in the 5 year Housing Land Supply narrowed to 3 sites. These are listed in the amended Statement of Common Ground on Housing Land Supply. However whilst that includes a table of the respective supply figures for each of those 3 sites, the tables of figures for claimed overall housing supply in that document are based on previous disputed figures for a larger number of sites. Thus there are not precise figures from either party on the current supply situation.

56. The supply evidence has changed since the Lymington Bottom Road appeal in April and again since the written proofs for this appeal were submitted. Further disputed evidence about site specific matters was introduced during the Inquiry. This demonstrates the fluctuating position and the difficulty of coming to a reliable estimate on the disputed sites based on only cursory evidence from both sides at a short 2-day Inquiry. However I do not consider that it is necessary to reach any conclusions on these site-specific matters since they would not materially affect the outcome, having regard to my conclusions on the other disputed housing supply matters.

Conclusions on Housing Supply

57. The Appellant’s witness accepted that there would be a 5 year housing supply if it were calculated on the basis of a 5% buffer, the Liverpool method and the disaggregation of requirements and supply between the 2 planning authorities.

58. For the above reasons I support the Liverpool method and a 5% buffer. Whilst I agree with the Appellant that there should not be disaggregation for the purposes of this calculation at this site, that has much less effect on the overall supply when compared to the other factors. Thus whilst the supply position may be more marginal than the Council claims, I conclude on the balance of probabilities that the Council has demonstrated at least a 5 year housing

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 12 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

supply. That this is against only a minimum housing requirement in the JCS does not alter that conclusion.

59. On the balance of probabilities I consider that there is a 5 year housing supply. Policy CP19 is thus not out of date and there is no presumption in favour of the development.

60. Since the application was refused, the Council, the Appellant and the landowners have completed a Section 106 Planning Obligation Agreement which seeks to resolve those reasons for refusal which related to the provision of affordable housing and infrastructure. These matters are therefore no longer disputed between the main parties. However consideration is necessary as to whether the completed agreement is in accordance with the provisions of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended). In particular whether the completed agreement accords with the provisions for pooled contributions.

61. The Council has submitted a CIL compliance statement which claims compliance with the Regulations and particularly with Regulations 122 and 123. The Appellant has expressed doubts as to whether there is sufficient information. However, as the appeal is being dismissed for other reasons I have concluded that it is unnecessary to seek additional information or to address the matter further.

Other Matters

62. Account has been taken of all other matters raised in representations. In particular a number of interested persons have expressed concern about the safety of the access arrangements. Access would be onto a curving busy road with a 40mph speed limit which some vehicles may currently exceed. However the highway authority is satisfied that the access would be adequately safe on the basis that the speed limit would be reduced to 30mph with the addition of a gateway feature as a traffic calming element. That could be secured by a Grampian style negative condition to prevent the development from going ahead unless those measures are secured. The lower speed limit would mean that adequately safe visibility splays could be provided at the access without removing significant amounts of the frontage hedge.

63. The appeal site would be closely overlooked from No 120 Downhouse Road which is a bungalow with several south facing windows that benefit from an open outlook across the appeal site. However there is no planning requirement to maintain unchanged a view from private property. Whilst outlook from some windows would be restricted by the nearest dwelling these are not main windows to habitable rooms. Also the new Plot 1 dwelling would be set on lower ground which would reduce its apparent height. The boundary treatment between the two properties could be reserved by condition were the development otherwise acceptable. It is therefore concluded that living conditions at that property would not be significantly harmed in respect of outlook.

64. Planning conditions to control external lighting would reduce the risk of impacts on the nearby Clanfield Observatory.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 13 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

65. Neither these nor the other matters raised (including other appeal decisions and legal cases) outweigh the conclusions on the main issues.

Overall Conclusions

66. In relation to the 3 limbs of sustainable development it is acknowledged that the provision of market and affordable housing provides social benefits for the occupiers and wider economic benefits. However that does not necessarily require that the housing be provided in locations where there would be environmental harm. Whilst some of the Council’s reasons for refusal could be satisfactorily addressed by planning conditions and a Section 106 Obligation, they could not adequately mitigate the harm to the character and appearance of the countryside which would be in conflict with the development plan and specifically Policy CP19. It would thereby harm the environmental objectives of the JCS.

67. The Local Gap policy currently also remains in place and is contravened in that an adequate housing supply is available elsewhere and it has not been shown that the development could not be located outside the Local Gap as is required to satisfy that policy. The Council is already seeking to make provision by means of allocations to satisfy the minimum housing requirements for Clanfield and Horndean in the JCS. There is no maximum provision but if more sites are needed then the logic of the JCS policies is that either the additional sites should be outside the Local Gap or that the Local Gap policy and boundaries should be reviewed.

68. Because of the harm to environmental sustainability and the conflict with up- to-date policies in the plan-led system this would not be a sustainable development. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply whether under JCS Policy CP1 or the Framework. In specific relation to paragraph 14 of the latter, as the Council on the balance of probabilities does have a 5 year housing land supply, Policy CP19 is not out of date in the terms of the Framework and is contravened. Policy CP23 is also contravened in respect of the Local Gap. I have not identified specific conflict with JCS Policies CP1, CP2 or CP10 but conclude that there is overall conflict with the development plan which is not outweighed by the general support for housing development in the Framework.

69. There are no material considerations that here outweigh the identified conflict with the development plan.

70. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.

R P E Mellor

INSPECTOR

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 14 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr D Stedman-Jones Of Counsel He called Mr J Holmes BA Planning Witness – East Hampshire District PGCertUD MRTPI Council Mr A Harvey BA(Hons) Housing Supply Witness - East Hampshire MA MRTPI District Council –

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr P Cairnes Of Counsel He called Mr D Neame BSc MSc Planning Consultant – Neame Sutton Chartered MRTPI Town Planners

INTERESTED PARTY:

Ms E Tickell Horndean Parish Council

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY

1. Statement of Common Ground Housing Land Supply

1A Revised Statement of Common Ground Housing Land Supply

2. EHDC - Memo of Understanding between EHDC and SDNPA concerning disaggregation of housing requirement and supply

3. EHDC - Email concerning Causeway Farm and Petersfield Neighbourhood Plan

4. EHDC - Email concerning cycle and footway access to land E of Horndean Lane

5. Undated Section 106 Planning Obligation

6. Lymington Bottom Road, Medstead appeal decision Ref APP/M1710/A/14/2226723

7. Statement by Ms Tickell for Horndean PC

8. East Hampshire Local Plan Joint Core Strategy 2014

9. APP - Statement of Common Ground from Lymington Bottom Road Medstead Inquiry

10. EHDC Harvey Proof Revised Appendix N

11. APP - Note concerning Rowlands Parish Council position on housing supply in context of Land E of Horndean development

12. APP – Extract from SDNP Inspector’s report concerning non-inclusion of Catherington in SDNP.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 15 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

13. EHDC note of definitions of settlements as opposed to parishes for purposes of housing supply

14. Signed and dated Section 106 Planning Obligation

15. Closing Statement by Mr Stedman-Jones

16. Opening statement by Mr Cairnes

17. Closing statement by Mr Cairnes

18. Written Costs Application by Mr Cairnes

19. Written response to Costs Application

20. EHDC – CIL Compliance Statement

21. EHDC - Table of developers’ contributions for South Forum area.

22. Email of 21 July 2015 with Appellant’s comment on the CIL compliance statement.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 16

Costs Decision Inquiry held on 8-9 July 2015 Closed in writing on 23 July 2015 Site visit made on 9 July 2015 by R P E Mellor BSc DipTRP DipDesBEnv DMS MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 11 August 2015

Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/M1710/W/15/3004843 Land north of 102 Downhouse Road, Catherington Hampshire PO8 0TY  The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 320 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).  The application is made by Southcott Homes Ltd for a full or partial award of costs against East Hampshire District Council.  The inquiry was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of the Council to grant planning permission for a residential development of 26 dwellings including open market and affordable dwellings, landscaping and public open spaces, access, and associated engineering works.

Decision

1. The application for an award of costs is refused.

The submissions for Southcott Homes Ltd

2. The application was made in writing with oral additions at the Inquiry and is summarised here. With reference to national Planning Practice Guidance it is claimed that the Council has failed to produce evidence to substantiate the first reason for refusal and has relied on vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about the proposal’s impact which are unsupported by objective analysis.

3. In particular the Council has relied on manifestly out of date settlement policy boundaries and its contention that there is a 5 year housing land supply relies on untested and flawed evidence.

4. Notwithstanding the Lovedean Lane appeal decision1 it has failed to properly apply the Policy CP1 presumption in favour of sustainable development which incorporates that in the Framework and does not rely on a lack of a 5 year housing supply.

5. The Council has also persisted in an approach to the 5 year Housing Land Supply calculation that was expressly rejected by the Inspector in the Land East of Lymington Bottom Road, Medstead appeal2.

6. After Officers had initially supported the scheme the Council had arbitrarily changed its position without justification and has unreasonably prevented or delayed a development proposal which should have been permitted. The

1 APP/M1710/A/14/2229095 2 APP/M1710/A/14/2226723 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Costs Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

Appellant had been put to the significant expense of the appeal and seeks full costs. However if that is not allowed then a partial award is sought in respect of costs incurred from the date of the Lovedean Lane appeal decision.

The response by East Hampshire District Council

7. The Council made a written response which is summarised here.

8. The appeal proposal is not in accordance with the development plan or the NPPF taken as a whole and the Council was entitled to refuse permission. The Council has submitted extensive documentary and other evidence to the Inquiry to substantiate that refusal. By way of comparison the Council criticises aspects of evidence submitted by the Appellant.

9. Policies CP19 and H14 are considered to be up-to-date and there is no evidence of inconsistency with the National Planning Policy Framework. The policies were drawn to define and distinguish areas of countryside and established settlements, not solely to restrict housing.

10. The Council considers that the appeal proposal is not sustainable for all the reasons canvassed at the appeal.

11. As there is a 5 year supply the development plan is up to date.

12. The Council’s argument that there would be significant harm to the plan-led system is crystal clear and not unreasonable. That harm should be accorded significant weight.

13. No Inspector or Secretary of State has considered the instant development to be acceptable. The Council disagrees with the Inspector at the Lymington Bottom Road appeal and is taking legal advice on challenging that decision. Other appeal decisions have favoured the Council’s position on the key issues of the appropriate buffer, disaggregation, and Liverpool/Sedgefield.

14. Lovedean Lane was refused on amenity grounds and the 5 year housing land supply issue was not investigated in any detail.

15. The Council had behaved reasonably throughout the appeal. The Council was cooperative at all stages and sought to narrow issues through the statements of common ground. It is understandable that the Appellant is disappointed that the 5 year supply position changed at the wrong moment for their application after the Council significantly boosted the supply of housing, including at Clanfield and Horndean.

16. The costs application is hopeless and should fail.

Reasons

17. Costs may be awarded where a party has behaved unreasonably and the unreasonable behaviour has directly caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.

18. In this case I have concluded in my planning decision that the development policies are up-to-date and are contravened and that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply, whether on the basis set out in Policy CP1 or in the National Planning Policy Framework.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Costs Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

19. I consider that the Council did not correctly interpret either Policy CP19 or CP23. It did not produce any evidence of harm arising from the literal conflict with CP19 apart from harm to the plan-led system. Given the positive approach encouraged by national policy and JCS Policy CP1, such harm only merits significant weight where some associated harmful consequence for the public interest is demonstrated. The Council’s reason for refusal and inquiry evidence was vague in this regard. There was also a reference in the officer report to some harm to the setting of the national park but that was not reflected in the report’s conclusion or the decision.

20. In this case there was a clear conflict with the underlying objective of CP19 to protect the character of the countryside. That is to be expected when building on a greenfield site at the edge of a settlement. The Appellant recognised landscape character and appearance as an issue and commissioned landscape evidence. Nevertheless the Council signed a Statement of Common Ground to the effect that there was no harm to character or appearance.

21. In relation to Local Gap Policy CP23 the Council had not addressed a requirement of that policy to demonstrate that the development could not be located elsewhere. It was left to the parish council to point that out.

22. In the case of the Lovedean Lane appeal, the Council was justified in not seeking to add an additional reason for refusal at a late stage in the appeal process in relation to the settlement policy boundary, particularly as the IHPS appears to have still been in place. However the particular circumstances of that appeal were temporary and do not open the way to a general dismantling of the settlement boundary policies as out of date in circumstances where a 5 year supply exists and notwithstanding the general support for development in JCS Policy CP1, which is qualified.

23. As the housing land supply situation changed in January 2015, after the Lovedean Lane application was determined in November 2014 and before the subject application was determined on 29 January 2015, the Council was justified in changing its position on this issue whilst determining the application which led to the current appeal. That was unfortunate for the Appellant but does not demonstrate unreasonable behaviour.

24. In relation to Housing Land Supply, there is scope for judgement by the decision maker when assessing the factors that contribute to land supply and when assessing previous delivery, as the national Planning Practice Guidance recognises. There have been several planning appeals in East Hampshire and also the JCS Inspector’s Report that have reached differing conclusions on these matters but according to the available evidence. In the present appeal I consider that the Council’s approach was broadly correct except in relation to the disaggregation of supply (although I acknowledge that disaggregation may be appropriate in some other circumstances).

25. The Council did correctly identify that there was a conflict with the development plan and it was not unreasonable to refuse planning permission. The Council did not substantiate conflict with all the development plan policies referred to in the reason for refusal. It also omitted to include Policy CP23 where there was conflict with a relevant policy. The Appellant needed to address these matters in preparing evidence and at the Inquiry. This included the preparation of landscape evidence and work to address all the policies that had been cited. However had the reasons been better expressed and

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Costs Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

supported by evidence the appellant would have incurred similar expense in responding to them, indeed the Inquiry might have been extended with additional appearances by landscape witnesses.

Conclusions

26. Thus whilst the Council has acted unreasonably in part, it is concluded that the refusal was not unreasonable and the appeal and Inquiry would have been necessary in any event. Had the Council presented its reasons more clearly and substantiated the harm with additional evidence, the expense for the Appellant would not have been significantly less and may have been more. No award of costs is therefore justified. R P E Mellor

INSPECTOR