Wiswell Brook Farm, Moorside Lane, Wiswell, BB7 9DB
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Wiswell Brook Farm, Moorside Lane, Wiswell, BB7 9DB Appeal: Proposed development of 1no. dwelling and associated works. APPEAL STATEMENT August 2018 APPEAL STATEMENT WISWELL BROOK FARM REPORT CONTROL Document Appeal Statement Project Wiswell Brook Farm, Moorside Lane, Wiswell Client Mr and Mrs Smith Job Number 17-416 Z:\Client files\17-316 to 17-452\17-416 Wiswell Brook Farm, Moorside File storage Lane, Wiswell\6. Appeal Document Checking Primary Author: Molly Leonard Initialled: ML Contributor: Joshua Hellawell Initialled: JH Reviewer: Daniel Hughes Initialled: DH Revision Status Issue Date Status Checked for issue 1 13.08.2018 Draft ML 2 21.08.2018 Draft V2 JH 3 24.08.2018 Final DH 4 Page / 1 APPEAL STATEMENT WISWELL BROOK FARM CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 2 PLANNING HISTORY 3 REASON FOR REFUSAL AND CASE FOR THE APPELLANT 4 CONCLUSION Page / 2 APPEAL STATEMENT WISWELL BROOK FARM /1 INTRODUCTION 1.1. PWA Planning is retained by Mr and Mrs Smith (‘the appellant’) to lodge an appeal against the refusal for the proposed development of 1no. dwelling by Ribble Valley Borough Council (‘the Council’) in relation to planning application reference 3/2018/0537 for an application to erect one self-build dwelling and associated work at Wiswell Brook Farm, Moorside Lane, Wiswell, BB7 9DB. 1.2. This appeal statement, made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, has been prepared against the refusal. It should be read in conjunction with the other submitted documents and drawings that formed part of the original planning application. 1.3. The application site comprises of land north of Moorside Lane, with access to the land granted via a private access road. The land surrounding the red boundary is generally agricultural and residential in nature. The site area is approximately 0.2ha and is located off Moorside Lane, on the north-eastern fringe of Wiswell. The site comprises of a grassland plot with mature vegetation and trees along its west, north and eastern perimeter. The site generally slopes in an east to west direction. To the south is Moorside Lane, further to which is agricultural land, similarly land to the north east is predominantly agricultural, though immediately east of the site is land associated with Wiswell Brook Farm and to the west is land associated with Moorside. The adjoining plot of land to the north is a residential development located at Leys Close. 1.4. The application for planning permission was submitted to Ribble Valley Borough Council (the LPA) on 7th of June 2018 and was accompanied by appropriate plans and supporting information. The application was subsequently refused on 3rd of August 2018. There were two reasons for refusal provided on the decision notice; in brief, these relate to the LPA’s view that the proposed development would go against policies stated in the Core Strategy, and that the dwelling would constitute to unsustainable development in a Tier 2 location. Page / 3 APPEAL STATEMENT WISWELL BROOK FARM /2 PLANNING HISTORY 2.1. A search of Ribble Valley Borough Council’s (RVBC) planning register has been carried out to understand the planning history relevant to the site and the proposed development. 2.2. The application at hand represented the resubmission of application 3/2017/1188, which was refused consent on the 25th of May 2018 for the same reasons given for the resubmission to which this appeal relates. The rationale behind the resubmission is discussed further within the following section. 2.3. Previous to this a further application for a dwelling on this site was made (3/1991/0034) though this was some 26 years ago. Consequently, it was assessed against a notably different set of policy criteria and to our knowledge not based around self/custom build need. Other than the above there does not appear to be any other applications on Ribble Valley Borough Council’s public access system which are relevant to the proposal at hand. Page / 4 APPEAL STATEMENT WISWELL BROOK FARM /3 REASON FOR REFUSAL AND CASE FOR THE APPELLANT Reasons for Refusal 3.1. For reference, the two reasons for refusal on the decision notice are as follows: 1. The proposal is considered contrary to Key Statements DS1, DS2 and Policies DMG2 and DMH3 of the Ribble Valley Core Strategy in that the granting of approval would lead to the creation of a new residential dwelling and/or associated residential curtilage being partially located in the defined open countryside, located outside of a defined settlement boundary, without sufficient or adequate justification. 2. The proposal would lead to the perpetuation of an unsustainable pattern of development in a Tier 2 location, without sufficient or adequate justification, that does not benefit from adequate walkable access to local services or facilities - placing further reliance on the private motor-vehicle contrary to the aims and objectives of Key Statement DMI2 and Policies DMG2 and DMG3 of the adopted Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework presumption in favour of sustainable development. 3.2. The site is located partly within the settlement boundary of Wiswell and partly within the Open Countryside. Case for the Appellant 3.3. In the first instance it’s worth noting that it is the view of PWA Planning that the two reasons for refusal incorporate a notable degree of repetition. Moreover, the first reason seemingly fails to identify any direct harm which would qualify it as a valid reason for refusal, instead it merely operates on the principle that all development partially outside of a defined settlement would generate unacceptable harm. 3.4. As such the following sections seek to respond collectively to the reasons for refusal, rather than address them individually. On this basis it is prudent to note the main issues of contention have been grouped as follows: Page / 5 APPEAL STATEMENT WISWELL BROOK FARM • Partial open Countryside Location; • Self-build Housing; • Sustainability of Location; • 5-year Housing Supply. 3.5. As noted throughout the submitted documents, whilst a portion of the site does lie outside of the settlement boundary, it does not seem reasonable to consider the application site as falling outside of the settlement and as such the associated ‘open countryside’ polices should not be given full weight on the basis they are not relevant to a significant portion of the site. Moreover, the site is clearly well assimilated to the existing pattern of development and undoubtfully represents a logical infill plot which is far preferable to more isolated sporadic open countryside development. Consequently, it is maintained that it’s more appropriate to refer to the site, in the context of local policy, as falling within a tier 2 settlement. 3.6. With further regard for development within a tier 2 settlement, policy DS1 outlines that development “will need to meet proven local needs or deliver regeneration benefits”. This is a stipulation that is prevalent in the other quoted policies - DMG2 and DMH3, although as noted above it is contended that DMH3 should be given determinative weight. Consequently, general adherence to these policies would be accepted should the proposals be viewed as local need housing. This, of course was the main matter which was debated as part of the application’s determination. 3.7. As noted in the submitted application Local Authorities have a duty to grant planning permission for self-build/custom build homes as detailed in the National Planning Practice Guidance and the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016). The duty to grant planning permission is based around their being an identifiable demand for such plots which is detailed through the use of a self-build/custom build register maintained by the relevant local authority. In this context Page / 6 APPEAL STATEMENT WISWELL BROOK FARM the current RVBC self-build register details that demand for self-build plots in Wiswell does exist. 3.8. The question is therefore whether self-build/custom build housing represents ‘local need housing’. On the basis that this proved a point of contention, counsel advice was obtained in relation to the strength of the Council’s obligation to consent to self-build development and where the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 sat in the hierarchy of material considerations. The advice was sought in relation to a separate self-build planning application within the Ribble Valley, but it is considered that it is equally relevant to the proposal at hand (permission to use the counsel advice as part of the original application and this appeal was granted by the owner of said advice). A copy of the counsel advice is included in Appendix A but the advice can be summarised by the following excerpts: “From the foregoing it is apparent that the Council must rely upon the register as its measure of need.” “The Council has a statutory duty to provide development plots of those who wish to self-build. It is a statutory duty which the 2015 Act imposes into planning functions.” “I would note that this is in fact, arguably, a higher duty than for other forms of housing.” “Section 38(6) requires the local plan be followed unless material considerations indicate otherwise. One such material consideration would be an Act of Parliament imposing a specific planning duty to provide planning permission for this specialist form of housing. The weight for a material consideration is a matter for the decision maker but the weight of a duty imposed by a primary piece of legislation from Parliament must be significant verging, I would hazard, on overwhelming.” “There is a specialist form of housing need (self-build) which those instructing me submit falls within the terms of DMH3.