Report to the Secretary of State The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House for Communities and Local 2 The Square Temple Quay Government Bristol BS1 6PN 0117 372 8000 By Michael Ellison MA(Oxon)
An Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Date: 17 August 2009 Communities and Local Government
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH
APPEAL by
NORTHANTS LLP in connection with the proposed development at UPPER REDHILL, WELLINGBOROUGH of 3,000 dwellings, retail and commercial facilities, non-residential institutions, a neighbourhood centre, open spaces and parkland, associated facilities and infrastructure and a reserve corridor for the Isham-Wellingborough road improvement
Inquiry opened on 2 June 2009
File ref: APP/H2835/A/08/2093066 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Case Details 1
1 Introduction and preliminary matters 2
2 The appeal site and the surrounding area 5
3 The proposed development 6
4 Planning policy 8
5 The case for the Appellants 15
6 The case for the Council 46
7 The case for the Highways Agency 62
8 The case for the County Council 62
9 The cases of the interested parties 64
10 Written representations 83
11 Conclusions 88
12 Recommendation 112
Appendix A – List of Documents 113
Appendix B – Recommended conditions 125
Appendix C – List of Abbreviations 137
REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
CASE DETAILS
Appeal ref: APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Land off the A509 Niort Way and the A510 Northen Way and south of Great Harrowden, Wellingborough, NN8 4UF
• The appeal is made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Northants LLP (“the Appellants”) against the Borough Council of Wellingborough (“the Council”). • The application (ref: WP/2008/0150/OEIA) is dated 4 March 2008. It was amended by agreement with the Council on 13 October 2008, and it is the application as so amended which is considered in this report. • The development proposed is up to 3,000 dwellings, retail and commercial facilities, non-residential institutions (including primary schools and nurseries), a neighbourhood centre (comprising transport interchange, non-institutional and commercial facilities), open spaces and parkland, associated facilities and infrastructure (comprising utilities including gas, electricity, water, sewerage and telecommunications, and diversion to existing utilities where necessary) and a reserve corridor for the Isham-Wellingborough road improvement. • The case was recovered for determination by the Secretary of State by letter dated 13 January 2009. The reasons for recovery were that the appeal proposal would involve residential development of over 150 units on a site of over 5 hectares, and that it was considered that the decision on the appeal would have a significant impact on the Government’s objectives to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and to create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities. • The then Secretary of State gave notice on 27 January 2009 that, on the information available to her at that time, the matters on which she particularly wished to be informed for the purpose of her consideration of the appeal were:
a. The extent to which the proposed development would be in accordance with the Development Plan for the area.
b. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government policies in PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development and accompanying guidance The Planning System: General Principles, with particular regard to
i) the achievement of sustainable development and sustainable communities through an integrated approach to social cohesion, protection and enhancement of the environment, prudent use of natural resources and economic development; ii) whether the design principles adopted in relation to the site and its wider context, including the layout, scale, open space, visual appearance and landscaping, are appropriate in their context and take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions, having regard to the advice in paragraphs 33 to 39 of PPS1; iii) the way in which the application takes into account the access needs of all in society, including people with disabilities – including
1 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
access to and into buildings having regard to the advice in paragraphs 36 and 39 of PPS1; iv) advice on prematurity in paragraphs 17-19 of The Planning System: General Principles, having regard to progress towards adoption of any emerging development plan documents or saved policies under the transitional arrangements.
c. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government planning for housing policy objectives in PPS3 Housing, with particular regard towards delivering:
i) high quality housing that is well designed and built to a high standard; ii) a mix of housing, both market and affordable, particularly in terms of tenure and price, to support a wide variety of households in all areas, both urban and rural; iii) a sufficient quantity of housing taking into account need and demand and seeking to improve choice; iv) housing developments in suitable locations, which offer a good range of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure; v) a flexible, responsive supply of land – managed in a way that makes efficient and effective use of land, including re-use of previously developed land, where appropriate.
d. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the advice contained in PPG13 Transport, in particular on the need to locate development in a way which helps to promote more sustainable transport choices; promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling; reduce the need to travel, especially by car, and whether the proposal complies with local car parking standards and the advice in paragraphs 52 to 56 of PPG13.
e. Whether any permission should be subject to any conditions and, if so, the form that these should take.
f. Whether any planning permission granted should be accompanied by any planning obligations under Section 106 of the 1990 Act and, if so, whether the proposed terms of such obligations are acceptable.
g. Any other matter that the Inspector considers relevant.
• The inquiry sat for nine days on 2-5, 9-12 and 18 June 2009. It was closed in writing on 14 July 2009. Summary of Recommendation: That the appeal be allowed and planning permission granted, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix B to this report.
1. INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY MATTERS
.1 The Milton Keynes and South Midlands (“MK/SM”) area is one of four major growth areas identified in the Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan of 2003 (Document CD6.1). Outside London, it is the biggest single growth area. The potential for growth in MK/SM to 2031
2 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
is seen as being 300,000 jobs and 370,000 homes. Within MK/SM, that growth is to be concentrated in five major urban areas, one of which is Wellingborough/Kettering/Corby (Document CD6.1, page 54).
.2 The MK/SM Sub Regional Strategy (“MK/SMSRS”) of 2005 (Document CD1.2) makes it clear that the towns of Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby should grow in a complementary way, while retaining their separate identities. Between the three towns, an increase of 34,100 dwellings should be accommodated by 2021, with an increase in employment of 43,800 jobs over the same period. Such an increase would require a step change in the rate of both house building and job creation in the area.
.3 It is against that background that the detailed policies in the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (“CSS”) were adopted in June 2008. Those policies seek to deliver the major growth required in the three towns through expansion of the town centres, redevelopment of other sites within the urban areas, and carefully planned Sustainable Urban Extensions (“SUE”s).
.4 The appeal application represents a plan for one of the two SUEs which are to take place in Wellingborough.
.5 It is an outline application with all matters reserved for subsequent approval.
.6 The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (“ES”), prepared under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (“the EIA Regulations”). The ES was prepared in February 2008, and comprises Documents AD5.1 to AD5.3 together with Document AD5.4, which is an addendum dealing with the potential environmental impacts of the amendments made to the application in October 2008 following discussions between the Appellants and officers of the Council.
.7 Those discussions were partly prompted by a request made by the Council under Regulation 19 of the EIA Regulations for further information relating to an earlier application made by the Appellants for planning permission on the same site and in the same terms as the appeal application. That earlier application (ref: WP/2007/0750/OEIA) had been submitted in November 2007. It was determined by the full Council on 4 February 2009, but by that time the current appeal had been submitted, and jurisdiction in relation to the appeal application had already been recovered by the Secretary of State.
.8 The earlier application was refused by the Council for the following reasons:
a. In the absence of a reasonable prospect of IWIMP (Isham- Wellingborough Road Improvement) being delivered within the lifetime of this permission, this implies that the traffic impact arising from the proposed development cannot be
3 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
adequately/sufficiently mitigated. Therefore, this prevents a comprehensive development of a Sustainable Urban Extension, contrary to Policies 6 (Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contributions); 7 (Delivering Housing); 9 (Distribution and Location of Development); and 16 (Sustainable Urban Extensions) of North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and contrary to the advice in Planning Circular 11/95.
b. The initial SUE at Wellingborough East (WEAST) has not been successfully established in accordance with Policies 7 (Delivering Housing) and 9 (Distribution and Location of Development) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. In the circumstances the phasing expected will not be implemented if planning permission is given for the proposed development. This would be detrimental to the delivery and distribution of housing in Wellingborough contrary to the above policies.
c. The gap between the proposed development and the Harrowden villages to the north would be insufficient to provide a sensitive transition to the adjoining areas in the countryside. This would be likely to result in an undesirable coalescence with the Harrowden villages to the north. This is inconsistent with the principles of sustainable patterns of development contained in Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and contrary to Policy 16 (paragraph k) (Sustainable Urban Extensions) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Policy MKSM Northamptonshire 4 of Regional Spatial Strategy for East Midlands (RSS8).
d. In the absence of a planning obligation to secure community benefits and provide the necessary infrastructure to mitigate the adverse impacts of the development, the proposal is contrary to Policy 6 (Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contributions) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.
.9 A Pre-Inquiry Meeting (“PIM”) was held on 17 April 2009. A note of the matters discussed at that PIM forms Document GEN/1. At the PIM it was stated that the Council intended to rely on the reasons for refusal of the 2007 application as the putative reasons for refusal of the appeal application. At the inquiry, however, the Council indicated that they no longer relied on reason (c), and would present no evidence on that issue. As will be seen from section 9 of this report, coalescence remained a matter of concern to some of the interested parties who appeared at or submitted representations to the inquiry. On the other hand, at the inquiry the Council also challenged the viability of the appeal development, and, in the light of that, the credibility of the Section 106 obligation eventually offered by the Appellants.
.10 Rule 6 status was granted to the Highways Agency (“HA”) and to Northamptonshire County Council (“the County Council”). Both played only a limited part in the inquiry, however, after agreeing Statements of Common Ground (“SCGs”) with the Appellants.
4 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
.11 In fact, there are three signed SCGs relating to the case, Documents APP/0/4, made between the Appellants and the Council, APP/0/5 and APP/0/6, made between the Appellants and the HA and the County Council respectively.
.12 Both before and during the inquiry, discussions were taking place between the Appellants, the Council and the Rule 6 parties regarding the terms of an obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the development. By the last sitting day of the inquiry, the terms of such an obligation were understood to be substantially agreed, but some further negotiation was envisaged, and the obligation had therefore not been executed. That is the reason for the four week adjournment which I agreed to allow. The obligation eventually received comprises Document APP/0/16. It was substantially as discussed at the inquiry, which enabled me to close the inquiry in writing, as it had been indicated to the parties at the last session of the inquiry on 18 June 2009 would probably be the case. Such changes as had been made to the draft obligation which was before the inquiry on its last sitting day were either minor drafting changes or changes which were of additional advantage to the community in terms of the benefits offered.
.13 An application for their full (or, in the alternative, partial) costs was made by the Appellants against the Council. An application for partial costs was made by the Council against the Appellants. Those applications are dealt with in separate reports.
.14 I made unaccompanied site visits to the site and the surrounding area both before and during the inquiry. One of those unaccompanied site visits took place on 11 and 12 June during the hours of darkness. I carried out a formal site visit accompanied by representatives of the parties on 19 June 2009.
.15 This report contains a brief description of the appeal site and its surroundings, the gist of the representations made at the inquiry and in written representations, and my conclusions and recommendations. Copies of the proofs of evidence of those witnesses who provided them are included as accompanying documents, but my report covers the gist of the evidence as given (including responses to matters dealt with in cross examination).
.16 Appendix A contains a list of the documents which were considered at the inquiry. Appendix B contains the conditions which I recommend should be imposed on any planning permission granted. Appendix C comprises a list of the abbreviations used in this report.
2. THE APPEAL SITE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA
2.1 A full and agreed description of the appeal site and its surroundings is contained in Document APP/0/4 (paragraphs 2.1 to 2.7 inclusive). It is supplemented by the descriptions contained in APP/0/5 and APP/0/6 at
5 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
paragraphs 2.1 to 2.4 in each case.
2.2 Together, these descriptions identify the appeal site (which is known as “Upper Redhill”) as an area of 252.5 hectares, located about 2 kilometres to the north and north west of the centre of Wellingborough, and currently in agricultural use. It lies on the north side of the valley of Great Harrowden Brook, rising gently from about 68 metres above Ordnance Datum (“AOD”) towards the village of Great Harrowden to the north. The site is largely an open arable landscape, with low hedges and a few trees. There is a ridge line across the north of the site at about 100 metres AOD, with Great Harrowden lying beyond and slightly below the ridge. Little Harrowden lies some 700 metres north west of what would be the closest point of the appeal development.
2.3 The southern boundary of the appeal site is made up by Hardwick Road, Niort Way (A509) and Northen Way (A510). South of Hardwick Road is the Park Farm Industrial Estate; to the south of Niort Way and Northen Way are areas of housing, including the Gleneagles and Redhill Farm Estates. Beyond the western boundary of the appeal site, there is open countryside. At the eastern boundary is the Finedon Road Industrial Estate, with the London Midland railway line beyond, and, to the east of that, the course of the River Ise. There is a further area of land to the north of the Finedon Road Industrial Estate which is currently in agricultural use, but is the subject of an undetermined application for planning permission for employment use. This is known as “Pulse Park”. The small settlement at Furnace Cottages lies immediately to the north of the boundary of the Pulse Park site.
2.4 From its junction with the A510, the A509 turns north and runs through the appeal site, then on to Isham and the A14 at Kettering.
2.5 An existing area of housing development known as Redhill Grange is surrounded by but is excluded from the appeal site. It was developed in three stages between 1972 and 1986.
2.6 The appeal site also excludes an area of 8.36 hectares to the north of Niort Way which is known as “Curtis Land”. This is the subject of an application for outline planning permission for 226 dwellings which was submitted to the Council on 20 May 2009. That application has not yet been determined.
2.7 Document APP/0/9 is a very helpful plan which shows the appeal site in relation to the town centre of Wellingborough, the other proposed Wellingborough SUE at WEAST, and other locations mentioned above.
3. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
3.1 The elements of the proposed development are listed in the Case Details on page 1 above. A more detailed agreed description will be found in Section 4 of Document APP/0/4. In summary, the proposed scheme would include up to 3,000 dwellings on 73.04 hectares; 26,120 square metres of employment floor space within Use Classes B1a, b and c on
6 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
6.69 hectares; a neighbourhood centre with two smaller centres; up to 4,000 square metres of retail provision; sites for two primary schools and associated playing fields; 13.65 hectares of formal open spaces and 115.78 hectares of informal open space; and a reserved corridor for the construction of the IWIMP. At the inquiry, the Appellants indicated that they would accept conditions limiting retail use within Class A1 to 2,600 square metres, and excluding permitted development rights in relation to change of use from any other Class A use to Class A1.
3.2 The development would be carried out in three phases. Phase 1 would involve the construction of 1,500 dwellings to the west of the A509, the first primary school, a start on the neighbourhood centre and one of the local centres, and the creation of open space areas to the west of the proposed IWIMP. Phase 2 would see a further 700 dwellings, mainly to the west of the IWIMP, with completion of the neighbourhood centre and one of the smaller centres together with the employment development. Phase 3 would involve the development of 800 dwellings, mainly to the east of the A509, the second local centre and primary school, and completion of the formal park areas. The phasing is shown clearly on Documents AD 3.9 to 3.11.
3.3 The proposed phasing assumes that the IWIMP would be provided during Phase 1 and be completed before the commencement of Phase 2. With the construction of the IWIMP, the A509 through the site would be downgraded, and a new diagonal route across the site (Redhill Street) would provide a link to Redhill Grange.
3.4 As well as the ES referred to in paragraph 1.6 above, the application was accompanied by a comprehensive suite of supporting documents, which comprise Documents AD4.1 to 4.8, a Transport Assessment comprising Documents AD6.1 to 6.5, and Parameter Plans (Documents AD3.2 to 3.11) which deal (amongst other matters) with the proposed density of development, built form, building height and phasing.
3.5 Although the Curtis Land is outside the appeal site, an assessment of the environmental impact of its development, cumulatively with the appeal development, was made on behalf of the Appellants. Details of the assessed impact are contained in Document AD2.8. The actual outline planning application now submitted for the Curtis Land is for a development within the scale of that assumed for the purposes of the assessment.
3.6 The conclusion of the assessment was that development of both the Curtis Land and the appeal site should not lead to any significant cumulative effect over and above the effects identified in the ES. No challenge to that conclusion was made by the Council or any other party at the inquiry.
7 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
4. PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The Development Plan for the area includes the East Midlands Regional Plan (“RSS”), published on 12 March 2009 (Document CD1.1). This has updated Part B (Northamptonshire) of the MK/SMSRS, extending the housing provision figures for all Districts to 2026. The Development Plan also includes the CSS (Document CD1.3) and the saved policy of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan 2001 (“SP”), the saved policies of the Wellingborough Local Plan 1999 with 2004 alteration (“LP”) and the Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan 2006 (“WLP”). These are respectively Documents CD1.4, CD1.6 and CD1.5.
4.2 With a major, mixed use development proposal such as the appeal scheme, many Development Plan policies are relevant to the consideration of the application. The list of such policies is agreed between the parties, and it is set out at paragraphs 5.4 to 5.15 of Document APP/0/4, paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 of Document APP/0/5, and paragraphs 11.1 and 11.2 of Document APP/0/6. The policies principally engaged by the appeal application are:
• RSS Policy MK/SMSRS Northamptonshire 4 (Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough) • CSS Policy 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) • CSS Policy 6 (Infrastructure Delivery and Development Contributions) • CSS Policy 7 (Delivering Housing) • CSS Policy 9 (Distribution and Location of Development) • CSS Policy 13 (General Sustainability Development Principles) • CSS Policy 15 (Sustainable Housing Provision) and • CSS Policy 16 (Sustainable Urban Extensions).
4.3 Many of the national planning policy guidance documents are also relevant to aspects of the appeal development, and again these are listed in section 6 of Document APP/0/4, along with relevant Circulars. Those most relevant to the appeal application are:
• PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) • PPS3 (Housing) • PPG13 (Transport) • PPG16 (Archaeology) • PPG17 (Open Space, Sport and Recreation) • PPG24 (Planning and Noise) and • PPS25 (Planning and Flood Risk) together with • Circular 11/95 (The Use of Conditions) • Circular 02/99 (Environmental Impact) and • Circular 05/2005 (Planning Obligations.
4.4 A range of local Supplementary Planning Guidance documents (“SPG”) exists which has a bearing on the appeal proposals. Where this SPG has been formally adopted following public consultation and is not affected by subsequent changes in the Development Plan or in national policy
8 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
guidance, I attach considerable weight to it. That applies to the following items:
• SPG on parking adopted March 2003 (Document CD2.4) • SPG on planning out crime adopted February 2004 (Document CD2.6) • SPG on building better places adopted in March 2003 (Document CD2.7) • SPG on sustainable design, which, although the document itself does not show it, was adopted in Wellingborough in May 2009 (Document CD2.10).
4.5 In relation to planning contributions under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, both the Council and the County Council have adopted SPG which has been subject to public consultation. The Council guidance is contained in Document CD2.5 of November 2003, and the County Council guidance is to be found in Document CD2.9 of June 2004, updated in February 2006 on education contributions and Document CD2.12 of May 2007 on policing contributions. There is also County Council guidance on Fire Service contributions in Document CD2.13, which, although still marked as a draft, is in fact adopted. Both the Council and the County Council are, however, in the course of consultation on revised SPG on planning contributions (see Documents CD2.2 and CD2.11). Normally I should attach relatively little weight to such documents at the consultation stage, but in this case it can be said that the principle of such contributions and the approach taken in the area is well settled by both the existing adopted and the emerging documents. The trigger level of development, which differs as between Document CD2.5 and CD2.2, would be substantially surpassed in this case whichever guidance was applied; and the amount of the contributions offered has in any event been individually negotiated for the specific scheme, with the existing and proposed SPG providing only a starting or reference point.
4.6 Document CD2.3 provides SPG on affordable housing. It was adopted following public consultation in July 2004, but it needs to be read in the light of subsequent national guidance in PPS3 and of Policy 15 of the CSS, which increases the target level of provision in Wellingborough from 27% to 30%.
4.7 The Council also adopted a document entitled Wellingborough North Sustainable Urban Extension Planning Guidance in January 2009 (Document CD2.1). This guidance was apparently prepared to assist the Council in assessing whether an application accompanied by a master plan would conform to the Development Plan. The aim was to deliver clarity for both the applicants and the Council, given that the planned Site Specific Development Document for the SUE had not been prepared.
4.8 In the absence of the Site Specific Development Document, I have attached weight to this document as representing the Council’s considered view of the applicability of Development Plan policies to the
9 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
appeal site. The guidance makes it clear in its paragraph 5.3 that it has taken account of representations made on the original Upper Redhill planning application, including those made by residents of Redhill Grange.
4.9 The local planning documents provided to the inquiry also include Document CD2.8, the development framework for the WEAST SUE. This is not directly relevant to the appeal application, but it is useful in making it clear that the total site for the WEAST development is not limited to the Stanton Cross site, which has an existing outline planning permission – see paragraph 2.1.8 and figure 2.2 of that document. Appendix 2 to Document LPA/1/3 provides a copy of the master plan for the Stanton Cross development within WEAST.
Agreed planning policy issues
4.10 Very helpfully, section 9 of Document APP/0/4 identifies the planning policy issues which are not in dispute between the parties.
Housing growth
4.11 It is agreed between the parties that the RSS and the MK/SMSRS support housing growth in Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough. Policy Northamptonshire 4 of the MK/SMSRS states that the capacity of the existing built up area of all three growth towns should be used to the full. In parallel, proposals should be brought forward for SUEs to provide additional development at each of the three towns. At Wellingborough, the Policy provides that areas of search should include the east, north and west of the town.
4.12 As well as WEAST, the CSS identifies land to the north west of Wellingborough for a SUE, with housing programmed to be delivered from 2011. The CSS is not site specific, but the general direction of the SUE indicated in Figure 10 is to the north west of the town. The appeal site is consistent with that area. The Council’s site specific guidance of January 2009 (referred to at paragraph 4.7 above) relates to the same area as the appeal site.
4.13 Figure 13 of the CSS indicates that 2,300 new dwellings are expected from the Wellingborough North SUE in the period to 2021. The CSS also recognises that the SUE has the potential to continue to grow to help accommodate housing requirements beyond 2021. The appeal development proposes up to 3,000 dwellings, which could be accommodated within the appeal site at an average density of about 40 dwellings per hectare. The Council’s guidance regarding the Wellingborough North SUE referred to above estimates that the site could deliver in the region of 3,000 dwellings, together with associated infrastructure and facilities.
4.14 The Council’s Annual Monitoring Report 2008 (“AMR”) (Document CD3.8) indicates that the supply of deliverable housing land is slightly ahead of the CSS requirement in Wellingborough and slightly ahead of a
10 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
five year supply. That assumes, however, that 1,200 dwellings will be delivered within the Stanton Cross development at WEAST by 2014. In fact, Stanton Cross has been delayed from its expected start date shown in the CSS as 2008. The AMR also assumes the delivery of 1,100 dwellings at Wellingborough North (the appeal site) by 2014.
4.15 The proposed density of the appeal development at about 40 dwellings per hectare is consistent with Policy 16 (b) of the CSS and with the national minimum density for new housing developments contained in PPS3.
4.16 Although the appeal application is in outline, it would provide a broad mix of dwelling types consistent with CSS Policy 15 (a). The density of development and the housing type and mix could be controlled through the approval of detailed Design Codes for each phase of the development, secured through planning conditions.
Affordable housing
4.17 Policy 15 of the CSS requires a minimum provision of 30% affordable housing in developments in Wellingborough, although the Council’s site specific guidance would accept a 20% provision, together with 15% of market housing at low cost. The parties agree that arrangements for affordable housing could be incorporated into an obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, with the disposition of affordable housing throughout the development controlled through the approval of Design Codes secured through planning conditions.
Education
4.18 It is agreed between the parties that the existing primary schools within Wellingborough could not accommodate the additional pupils who would be generated by the appeal proposal. It is possible that secondary pupils could be accommodated, but the parties consider that the education requirements of the proposed development could be satisfactorily dealt with through a Section 106 obligation.
Health
4.19 The additional health provision which would be needed as a result of the appeal development could also be addressed by a Section 106 obligation. The proposals include a health clinic of 550 square metres as part of the development. This would include accommodation for a General Practitioner doctor surgery and a dental surgery.
Community facilities
4.20 Policy 16 of the CSS provides that the proposed SUEs should make provision for retail, leisure, social, cultural and community facilities that meet local needs, so that they can function as sustainable neighbourhoods without competing with the town centre. The parties
11 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
agree that the overall quantum of such uses proposed by the appeal development is in line with Policy 16 of the CSS and with the North Wellingborough SUE guidance.
Public realm, open space and recreational provision
4.21 The parties agree that the provision of open space, sports and recreational facilities proposed would be consistent with Policies 5 and 16 of the CSS and Government guidance within PPG17.
Employment provision
4.22 The proposal to provide B1 development as part of the SUE would enable people to live and work in the locality. The proposed neighbourhood centre would also provide a smaller scale level of employment generation. The employment provision proposed is consistent with the RSS, Policies 8, 11 and 16 of the CSS, the Council’s guidance on the development of the SUE and the Wellingborough Employment Land Study (Document CD3.1), which require urban extensions to provide a range of local employment opportunities and training prospects.
Landscape
4.23 A development of this scale would inevitably have impacts on the surrounding landscape. The proposals would result in some 30 trees and 10 tree groups being lost. Significant woodlands, trees and hedgerows have been identified, however, and would be conserved where possible and integrated within the new landscape structure. The proposals include the retention of all hedgerows identified as being of nature conservation interest. Detailed layout is reserved for further approval as a reserved matter. The Council’s adopted guidance for the site indicates that the northern limit of the built development should follow the 90 metres contour in order to ensure that most development would not rise above the highest point of the ridge to the south of Great Harrowden. With appropriate landscaping, it should not then be obtrusive in the wider landscape. This matter could be addressed by an appropriate planning condition.
Ecology
4.24 There is no statutorily designated site within the appeal site or within 2 kilometres of it. Blackberry Fox Covert, a mature broadleaf woodland in the west of the site, is a County Wildlife Site, and of district importance. It would be retained with a 30 metres buffer zone around the woodland, which would be planted with new woodland and used as open space in order to optimise its potential and to minimise disturbance to the woodland. Five hedgerows which fulfil the criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 are to be retained in the development. Extensive new woodland planting over several hectares of the site would support protected species which have been identified on the site, such as badgers, bats and breeding birds. Protective conditions could be
12 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
imposed to ensure this. Water vole surveys would be required before any works around the Harrowden Brook took place. These proposals are agreed to be consistent with Policies 26, 28 and 29 of the RSS, Policies 5 and 13 of the CSS, and Government guidance in PPS9.
Archaeology/historic environment
4.25 The appeal site does not contain any listed building or conservation area. The village of Great Harrowden includes several listed buildings, however, including the Grade l Harrowden Hall, 6 Grade ll* listed buildings, and 13 Grade ll listed buildings. Harrowden Park is a Grade ll* listed registered park and garden. Wellingborough Grange Farm is also a Grade ll listed building. It lies outside the appeal site boundary. Whilst the proposed development would encroach towards the farm, the farm would not be enveloped by the proposal. It is agreed between the parties that the impact on its setting would not be significant. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy 27 of the RSS, Policies 13 and 16 of the CSS, the Council’s guidance for the site, and Government guidance in PPG15.
4.26 There are known archaeological sites to the south of the village of Great Harrowden, which extend into the appeal site. The parties consider that a suitable safeguarding planning condition on any planning permission could require appropriate surveys and an archaeological “watching brief” during construction in those areas of identified importance. The parties therefore consider that the appeal proposal is consistent with Policy 27 of the RSS, Policies 13 and 16 of the CSS, the Council’s guidance for the site, and Government guidance in PPG16.
Flood risk
4.27 From initial modelling, the peak flood flows from the appeal proposal, taking into account a precautionary 1 in 1,000 year flood envelope plus a 20% allowance for climate change, remain in channel and would not encroach upon the proposed development. If detailed modelling of the Great Harrowden Brook were to show the flood envelope extending beyond the banks of the water course, no built development would take place in that area. If the flood envelope remained within the water course channel, a minimum 9 metres wide easement strip would be provided along the length of the water course to allow for maintenance and emergency access. Run off from the development would be restricted to the current annual “greenfield” rates, and surface water run off in excess of that figure would be suitably attenuated.
4.28 The Environment Agency are satisfied with the flood risk, subject to the imposition of conditions on any permission to require the arrangements set out above. In that situation, the appeal proposal is regarded as consistent with Policy 35 of the RSS, Policy 13 of the CSS, and Government guidance in PPS25.
13 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Other environmental issues
4.29 It is agreed that the submitted ES, including the additional information provided in Document AD5.4, satisfactorily identifies the main effects the proposed development might have on the environment and includes adequate mitigation measures to address any significant effect.
4.30 It is agreed that noise generated by traffic using roads within and alongside the appeal site, including the proposed IWIMP, can be satisfactorily mitigated by the incorporation of earth embankments and/or acoustic fences. Noise from the Finedon Road Industrial Estate could be satisfactorily mitigated for the proposed development by a new 4 metres high acoustic barrier along the existing fence line to that estate within a 10 metres wide landscaped corridor. The landscaped corridor would adequately screen the fence and mitigate its visual impact.
4.31 In terms of construction noise, it is agreed that the siting of plant, the use of temporary barriers and the use of construction best practice could satisfactorily mitigate any construction impacts on existing and proposed development.
4.32 All of these noise related matters could be addressed by the imposition of appropriate conditions and controlled through the Design Codes. With such action, it is agreed that the proposed scheme would comply with Policies 13 and 16 of the CSS, the Council’s guidance for the site, and PPG24.
4.33 It is agreed that energy efficiency, lighting, crime prevention and waste management issues can be satisfactorily addressed through the imposition of planning conditions or in the proposed Section 106 obligation.
Highways and transportation
4.34 In Document APP/05, the HA agree that, subject to appropriate conditions and obligations and to the mitigation proposed, there is no objection in principle to the appeal development in relation to its impact on the strategic road network.
4.35 In Document APP/06, the County Council as Local Highways Authority agree that, subject to the additions and modifications to the highway network proposed as part of the Phase 1 development and to appropriate conditions and obligations, the local highway infrastructure would allow access for up to the 1,500 dwellings proposed in Phase 1 prior to the implementation of IWIMP. That conclusion has been reached after detailed consideration of the Transport Assessment for the scheme and the application of the County Council’s traffic model. The remainder of the highways infrastructure to support the subsequent phases of the development would be provided either as part of the IWIMP scheme or in addition to the IWIMP scheme. On those bases, the
14 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
County Council agree that the proposed development is acceptable in highway and transportation terms.
5. THE CASE FOR THE APPELLANTS
The material points are:
Background
5.1 The Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan (Document CD6.1) identified growth areas in which the approach would not be to provide housing simply to address trends in local population growth; rather, there would be a deliberate, focused effort to increase significantly the land available for housing. Wellingborough is one of the growth towns identified for major growth. It has an important part to play in the achievement of the national policy set out in the Sustainable Communities Plan, the regional policy contained in the recently published RSS, the sub regional strategy contained in the MK/SMSRS, and the local strategy in the CSS.
The Appellants
5.2 Northants LLP is the trading name of Bee Bee Developments Ltd (“Bee Bee”) in relation to North Wellingborough. As a company, Bee Bee have made considerable investments in North Northamptonshire in assembling land to deliver the Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan. They are the promoters (with various partners) of three of the five major SUEs identified in the MK/SMSRS, and they are minority land owners in a fourth.
5.3 In Wellingborough, in addition to the appeal application, Bee Bee (as Wellmere LLP) have brought forward proposals and secured planning permission for the development of the Eastfield Urban Quarter (part of the WEAST SUE). The company also own land to the east of the railway line within the Stanton Cross area of WEAST.
5.4 In addition, the company are promoting numerous other sites for housing, retail, leisure and employment developments throughout North Northamptonshire. Bee Bee’s commitment to the sub region is substantial, as is demonstrated by the wide range of developments in which they are involved, described in Part 2 at pages 68 to 95 of “Growing Together” (Document APP/1/8). As Part 1 of that document reveals, Bee Bee seek to work closely with the planning authorities and highway authorities concerned, with the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit (“the JPU”), and with the North Northamptonshire Development Company (“NNDC”). The JPU is a local partnership involving the authorities of Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough and East Northamptonshire, together with the County Council, who are working together to create an overall plan for North Northamptonshire. The NNDC is the delivery vehicle created to manage and drive the growth and regeneration planned for the area.
15 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
The application process
5.5 The planning applications for Upper Redhill were prepared over a four year period in anticipation of the CSS identifying the appeal location for a SUE. The confirmation of a location to the north west of Wellingborough for a SUE was no surprise. The Appellants had assembled the land necessary to deliver the urban extension and the related infrastructure in close collaboration with the Council, the County Council and other stakeholders.
5.6 The pre application consultations are described in the Statement of Local Engagement (Document AD4.3) submitted with the application. Key features include a joint stakeholder consultation workshop event held with the Council and the promoters of WEAST in 2006 which considered the main principles for the development of Upper Redhill. Separate consultation events were held in Great Harrowden and adjacent communities on the emerging proposals. Those proposals were critically reviewed by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (“CABE”). That review led to changes being made, as did the feedback from the local consultation events. CABE were consulted further in March 2008, and are broadly supportive of the revised proposals. Their comments will be found at Appendix 6 to Document CD7.6. Continuing consultations were held with local Parish Councils and with residents at Redhill Grange following the submission of the original application in 2007.
5.7 As indicated at paragraph 1.7 above, the appeal application is a duplicate of that earlier application. Because it is in all respects the same as the earlier application, the process of consultation in relation to the original application has informed the appeal application.
5.8 As indicated at paragraph 1.8 above, the Council refused the earlier application at a special meeting of the full Council on 4 February 2009. That refusal was made despite the recommendation of the Council’s officers that, subject to the completion of an appropriate Section 106 Agreement, the earlier application should be approved.
5.9 A representative of the JPU advised the Council that the application was in conformity with the CSS, which had been adopted both by the Joint Planning Committee and by the Council. He stated that the CSS made it clear that both the proposed SUEs in Wellingborough (WEAST and the proposed SUE to the north of the town) were needed to meet housing targets.
5.10 A representative of the County Council indicated that the situation regarding IWIMP was acceptable, and did not mean that the application need be refused. By the time the level of development reached 1,500 houses, the County Council considered that IWIMP would have achieved both approval and funding. A Grampian condition to the effect that no dwelling within Phases 2 and 3 should be occupied until the IWIMP had been constructed and brought into use would therefore, in the opinion of the County Council, address satisfactorily the need for the increased
16 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
traffic capacity limits which the IWMIP would deliver.
5.11 The Council’s decision to refuse planning permission in relation to the earlier application was taken by elected Members, who then had to be asked by officers to specify the reasons for refusal. After a procedure had been followed of Members suggesting reasons for refusal, several of which were rejected by officers as not being acceptable planning reasons, it was announced to the Council meeting that the reasons for refusal concerned IWIMP, WEAST and coalescence. A vote was taken confirming these reasons for refusal, and the meeting then concluded.
5.12 It was left to officers to formulate the detailed reasons for refusal from the set of ideas provided by elected Members. When they did so, the fourth reason for refusal relating to the lack of a Section 106 obligation was added by officers. The procedure advocated in paragraph 10.3 of the Local Government Association publication “Probity in Planning” (Document LPA/0/8) was not followed in this case. The reasons for refusal were not moved as part of the original resolution to refuse, and there was no suggestion of an adjourned meeting at which putative reasons for refusal could be tested and discussed.
5.13 In the event, the third reason for refusal (coalescence) was dropped by the Council at the inquiry, as made clear in the statement of evidence of their relevant witness (Document LPA/1/2 paragraph 12.1), which was submitted on 5 May 2009. Despite that, it was still retained in Document APP/0/4, the SCG which was signed on 12 and 13 May 2009.
5.14 The issue of coalescence was also raised by interested parties, however, and it is therefore dealt with below, along with those of their reasons for refusal which the Council continue to maintain.
5.15 In addition, the Appellants deal below with the issue of the viability of the appeal development, which was raised by the Council at a late stage in the preparations for the inquiry.
The deliverability of IWIMP
5.16 IWIMP is a strategic route proposed to link Isham to Wellingborough, connecting with the already approved Isham Bypass in the north and with the A509 at Wellingborough in the south. Along with the Isham Bypass, it would connect the A45 trunk road in the south to the A14 trunk road at Kettering in the north. The various Road Orders for the Isham Bypass were confirmed on 12 June 2008. The road is fully funded, and construction is due to start on site in the second quarter of 2010.
5.17 The Council’s first reason for refusal assumes that there is no reasonable prospect of IWIMP being delivered within the lifetime of the permission being sought in this appeal. If that is the case, the Council contend that the traffic impact arising from the appeal development could not be accommodated on the existing road network, and the comprehensive development of a SUE at Upper Redhill therefore could
17 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
not be achieved.
5.18 In fact, there is the strongest possible prospect of the delivery of IWIMP within the lifetime of any permission granted in response to this appeal. That view is supported by the HA as strategic highways authority, by the County Council as local highways authority, and by NNDC as the main coordinator of public sector investment across the growth area.
5.19 The IWIMP scheme predates the plan for development at Upper Redhill. It is a longstanding County Council project. Study of the route started in Autumn 2003. Alternative routes were considered. Following public consultation, a preferred route was adopted by the County Council in June 2004. That route and its connections to the north and south can be seen on the composite plan (APP/0/9).
5.20 The scheme is supported by policy at all levels. Appendix 6 to the recently published RSS includes the scheme in the Southern Sub-Area transport investment priorities, indicating an implementation date of 2011/2016. The County Council’s Transport Strategy for Growth (Document CD7.1) was approved by the County Council as policy in September 2007. The IWIMP is included in the list of schemes under active development. In Policy CR1 of the document, the IWIMP is the first in the County Council’s priority order for further inter-urban road improvements. It is one of eight major road improvement schemes within the County identified as required to deliver growth.
5.21 IWIMP is central to the County Council’s transport plans. The Local Transport Plan (Document CD7.2, page 125) contains a clear exposition of the need for the route, describing it as a key section of the sub- regional road network, and underlining its importance as part of a strategic route. It is noted that, whilst the Isham Bypass will work well as a stand alone scheme, the extra growth planned for Northamptonshire makes the addition of IWIMP to deliver a complete dual carriageway between Kettering and Wellingborough more urgent. In their traffic modelling studies, the County Council have not even considered the implications of not having IWIMP because it is so fundamental to the growth proposals for the area. The Government needs the Growth Area, and the area needs this important link.
5.22 IWIMP is also a priority project identified in Policy 2 of the CSS. The delivery of the Vision and Spatial Strategy for North Northamptonshire is reliant on improving the connections between the Growth Towns and improvements in strategic and local connectivity. IWIMP would contribute to the achievement of these aims. It is a scheme which the County Council will pursue regardless of the outcome of this appeal.
5.23 The County Council accept, however, that the proposed alignments for IWIMP are deliverable alongside the implementation of the appeal proposal. That proposal would have no adverse impact, but in fact a positive effect on the future delivery of IWIMP.
5.24 The current estimated cost of IWIMP is £33m. Growth Area Funding
18 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
(“GAF”) has been allocated by the Government to prepare the planning application for the route, which signifies that the Government have accepted that it is necessary to the development of the Growth Area. The scheme has been the subject of extensive public participation, and an ES to accompany the planning application is currently being prepared. The County Council anticipate publishing Orders for the scheme in the third quarter of 2010, with a public inquiry (if necessary) in the second quarter of 2011, and an anticipated start on site in 2014. The land necessary for the IWIMP scheme is owned by the Appellants in the present case, and they have agreed to make that land available for the scheme at nil consideration through the Section 106 obligation for the appeal proposal. There will therefore be no argument regarding either the transfer or the value of the land concerned. This should avoid the need for a public inquiry in relation to the IWIMP. If a public inquiry could be avoided, that could bring forward the start on site of the road scheme by about two years and also save significant costs.
5.25 It is accepted that the outcome of the statutory procedures in relation to the processing of the IWIMP scheme cannot be regarded as a certainty, but the County Council consider that there is a reasonable prospect that funding will be secured and that IWIMP will be delivered within the lifetime of any outline planning permission granted for the appeal proposal. That is the test which must be met to support a Grampian condition limiting the occupation of dwellings on Phases 2 and 3 of the appeal development. It is not necessary that the IWIMP scheme already has detailed planning permission and fully committed funding.
5.26 Paragraph 3.7 of the Regional Funding Allocation (“RFA”) final report (Document LPA/0/5) indicates that the scoring of the various schemes in the RFA Round 2 list should be considered as indicative and subjective. The Isham Bypass was a low scoring scheme, but it was included in the final agreed package. The subjectivity involved is political. The Isham Bypass had been through all the necessary funding processes. IWIMP, on the other hand, had not been costed, and therefore no value for money study could be undertaken. Paragraph 5.29 of the RFA report makes it clear that none of the schemes have been ruled out of future rounds, when they can be better defined. This would be exactly the situation in relation to IWIMP.
5.27 The Community Infrastructure Fund (“CIF”) is designed to complement mainstream transport funding, linking funding for transport infrastructure to the delivery of housing. It seeks to fund the types of scheme which are vital locally to unlocking large housing development sites. This precisely defines the IWIMP scheme. It is within the geographical area covered by CIF (paragraph 9 of Document LPA/1/9), and the local transport authority have IWIMP as their first priority (paragraph 10). The local delivery vehicle (NNDC) have IWIMP within their priority schedule, and the scheme is consistent with their programme of development. The timescale of the scheme did not fit with that of CIF Round 2, but it clearly will fit in subsequent rounds.
5.28 As indicated at paragraph 5.10 above, it is the view of the County
19 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Council that Phase 1 of the appeal scheme could be implemented without the need for IWIMP, subject to the mitigation proposed in relation to traffic conditions as part of Phase 1. Although the Appellants do not seek planning permission solely for Phase 1, in the unlikely situation that IWIMP was not delivered within the timescale envisaged, a condition prohibiting occupation of any dwelling in Phase 2 or Phase 3 until the IWIMP has been completed and brought into use would ensure that traffic problems did not arise from any delay in the completion of IWIMP. The Phase 1 proposals include a primary school, shops, health facilities, local employment, open spaces and public transport measures. The development would be located at the existing urban edge of the town, to which it would be connected by every means of transport. If the scheme were forced to pause at that stage, it would still be a sustainable development. Its proximity to Redhill Grange would also improve the sustainability of that existing development by providing the residents of it with access to new facilities. If a start were to be made on the Phase 1 development in advance of any certainty of the delivery of IWIMP, an environmental assessment of Phase 1 alone could be required at the reserved matters stage.
5.29 In those circumstances, the County Council consider that it would be reasonable and appropriate to impose a Grampian condition on any outline planning permission, allowing up to 1,500 dwellings on Phase 1 of the appeal development to be occupied before the Isham Bypass and IWIMP have been completed. That is the level of development which could be occupied before the need for additional highway infrastructure beyond that which would be provided within Phase 1 is triggered.
5.30 This is a case in which the Advisory Team for Large Applications (“ATLAS”) were formally engaged by the Council in April 2008. In their report of December 2008 (Appendix 5 within Document APP/1/10), they express the opinion that
“With respect to specifying by means of conditions the limits of development until certain works have been carried out, a balance needs to be struck between the value and appropriateness of securing “comprehensive development” for a large scale site through a site wide masterplan and corresponding outline application, with defined development parameters, and a potentially piecemeal approach based upon a number of separate applications.”
“It is our opinion that a site wide masterplan and consistent outline application is a reasonable approach to take in this interest with appropriate phasing and clear definition of what supporting infrastructure would be delivered with each key phase or threshold point”.
5.31 In their report of December 2008, ATLAS express the view that, given the policy context and the stated priorities and objectives set out across a number of formal documents, as well as the clear relationship between IWIMP and the enabling role it could play in
20 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
delivering a defined amount of residential development in a growth area, it is their opinion that there is a reasonable prospect that it will come forward and secure funding within the short to medium term and secure the necessary consents. They say that the alternative view that, on the balance of probability, the scheme would not be delivered, appears to be contrary to Government priorities to deliver housing growth in a designated growth area.
5.32 ATLAS did not give evidence at the inquiry, and their views were therefore not subject to challenge by way of cross examination. In consequence, less weight can be attributed to them than to evidence which has been thoroughly tested by cross examination. The report which ATLAS prepared, however, clearly indicates that, should the determination of the application go to an inquiry, the views set out in the report are open to be used as evidence or referred to by any party.
5.33 The Council’s decision on 4 February 2009 to refuse permission for the earlier application on the appeal site on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of IWIMP being delivered within the lifetime of any permission contradicts the advice given by the County Council both orally and in writing to the Council before and at the meeting at which that decision was taken. Indeed, the Council’s position at that meeting and at the inquiry is at odds with the position which has been taken in the adopted CSS, the NNDC Programme of Development, and the Council’s submitted AMR. All of these documents proceed on the basis that IWIMP will be delivered, since they assume that more than 1,500 dwellings will be provided at Wellingborough North.
5.34 The clear conclusion to be drawn is that IWIMP will be delivered, and that it will be delivered in all probability within the County Council’s programme, with a start on construction in 2012 (or 2014 if a public inquiry is required). Phase 1 of the appeal development would take about five years from a start on site. A start on the construction of IWIMP would therefore be taking place at a time which would allow a start on the implementation of the Phase 2 proposals with the minimum of delay.
5.35 There is not just a reasonable prospect, but a likelihood, that IWIMP will be delivered during the life of the planning permission sought in this appeal.
The order of development of SUEs at Wellingborough
5.36 Each of the Local Planning Authorities within North Northamptonshire is required to maintain at least a five year housing land supply of deliverable sites for their area. In addition, Policy 7 of the CSS, which deals with the delivery of housing, seeks to ensure a five year supply of housing land for the North Northamptonshire area as a whole, enabling delivery to be coordinated across the Housing Market Area. The Council’s witness accepted in cross examination that a failure to deliver the required housing in Wellingborough would be a significant matter. It
21 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
would be inappropriate to have one of the Growth Towns falling significantly behind the others, because that would defeat the objective of coordinated and complementary growth across the three towns.
5.37 While high priority is to be given to the reuse of suitable brownfield sites, it is accepted in the CSS (paragraph 3.64) that the area has a limited supply of such sites, and that a substantial proportion of the required housing development will need to take place on greenfield sites. This greenfield development is to be focused on a small number of SUEs. Those strategic sites “will provide key building blocks for the delivery of growth in North Northamptonshire”. They are to be phased to take place throughout the Plan period, broadly as shown in Figure 13 of the CSS (page 44 of Document CD1.3). Figure 13 shows WEAST delivering 4,350 dwellings, commencing in 2008, and the SUE to the north west of Wellingborough delivering 2,300 dwellings, commencing in 2011. (Note, however, the agreed point on the revised quantum of housing development on the appeal site recorded at paragraph 4.13 above.)
5.38 Paragraph 3.67 of the CSS indicates that it is important that the initial SUEs (North East Corby, East of Kettering and WEAST) build up momentum as quickly as possible in order to achieve the critical mass necessary to support infrastructure and facilities. The phasing of the further SUEs envisaged (at Corby West and North West of Wellingborough) may be brought forward “if required to maintain a continuous supply of housing and to deliver the spatial vision for North Northamptonshire” (paragraph 3.68 of the CSS).
5.39 In particular, Policy 7 indicates that “The phasing of the further SUEs at Wellingborough and Corby may be reviewed and brought forward if:
(a) strategic and local infrastructure constraints can be resolved at an earlier date: and either;
(b) progress with the initial SUE for that town is delayed, or if the supply of housing from other sources falls significantly below anticipated levels, provided that appropriate efforts have been made to identify and address obstacles and constraints to housing delivery; or
(c) the initial SUE for that town has reached a critical mass, having delivered its first homes, primary school and local services, and brownfield sites are being delivered at anticipated levels. In this case, accelerating the delivery of the further SUEs will help ensure that growth targets are met to 2021.”
5.40 The policy goes on to provide that “Progress with the SUEs will be monitored. If, despite best endeavours to overcome constraints to delivery, development of a SUE does not commence, this Plan and other development plan documents will be reviewed. Where
22 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
necessary, sites will be de-allocated and planning permissions will not be renewed.”
5.41 Policy 9 of the CSS confirms that “Priority will be given to the reuse of suitable previously developed land and buildings within the urban areas, followed by other suitable land in urban areas”, and that further development requirements will be focused on a small number of SUEs. The Policy supports the approach that, once the initial SUEs are successfully established, further SUEs (including that to the North West of Wellingborough) will be brought forward.
Housing land supply in Wellingborough
5.42 The Council are required to report the position in relation to their five year supply of land for housing in the AMR, a document which they must submit to the Secretary of State annually under Section 35 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The AMR which the Council submitted in December 2008 (Document CD3.8) showed a shortfall in the planned achievement of housing development for the period 2001 to 2009 of 492 dwellings. This is to be made up over the remaining years (to 2021) of the Plan period. Making up a proportionate part of that shortfall in each year of the remaining Plan period would require a land supply for 3,918 dwellings to cover the period 2009 to 2014.
5.43 The Council conclude in the AMR that they have slightly in excess of a five year supply of deliverable housing land for the period to 2014 (sites for 3,985 dwellings against the requirement for 3,918). This conclusion is reached, however, only on the basis that, within that period, some 1,200 dwellings will be delivered by the Stanton Cross scheme within WEAST, and 1,100 dwellings by Wellingborough North (effectively by the appeal site). Without those two contributions, the Council would have, in effect, only just over a two year housing land supply.
5.44 The housing trajectory submitted by the Council shows Stanton Cross delivering some 150 dwellings in 2010/11 and 350 dwellings each year in the subsequent years. Wellingborough North is shown as delivering 50 units in 2010/11 and 350 dwellings per year in each of the subsequent years of the period.
5.45 The Council define WEAST in their Wellingborough East Development Framework (Document CD2.8) to include not just the Stanton Cross site (which has outline planning permission for a total of 3,100 dwellings built over three phases), but also land to the east of Eastfield Road. This last mentioned site is treated as a distinct site within the housing trajectory.
5.46 In fact, Bee Bee control the site to the east of Eastfield Road and, following the approval of a resolution by the Council in August 2008 to grant planning permission subject to the conclusion of an acceptable Section 106 obligation, they have carried out detailed
23 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
master planning for the site. This has increased the capacity for development from an anticipated 339 dwellings in the Council’s development brief to 540 units in the planning permission. There is the possibility of the total figure in this location within WEAST eventually reaching 1,000.
5.47 Bee Bee also have a minor interest in the Stanton Cross land. They acquired that land only after Bovis Homes had decided not to add it to their holding at Stanton Cross. As a result of this holding, Bee Bee (through a subsidiary) are signatories to the Section 106 obligation for the Stanton Cross development. They are therefore aware that that obligation imposes very high infrastructure costs on the developers during the early phases of the Stanton Cross development. The total infrastructure costs and other obligations under the Agreement amount to almost £163m. The obligation was signed before the full impact of the economic crisis which has affected the country in the recent past and the consequent fall in land values became apparent.
5.48 Some objectors to the appeal application allege that Bee Bee have purposely held up development at Stanton Cross, causing the loss of funding for a bridge over the railway line which would have helped to unlock WEAST. In fact, that funding would have been a loan to Bovis Homes, which they needed to accept prior to the issue of planning permission for the main development, and would then have been required to repay over time through enhanced Section 106 payments. Bee Bee were unhappy with the form proposed for the railway bridge. They considered that a better design was required, and that the bridge should be built on a line more appropriate to the strategic road connections to the rest of the Growth Area. This philosophy is reflected in the description of the scheme at page 80 of Document APP/1/8.
5.49 Although the development partners in the Stanton Cross development (including Bee Bee) have been proactive in a submission to the Homes and Community Agency by NNDC to develop an investment package which would ensure delivery of homes through the current recession in the housing market and the attempt to secure Government investment from the Partnership Villages proposals, it remains the case that a start has currently not been made on the Stanton Cross scheme. Moreover, further land needs to be acquired to allow the construction of one of the access routes to the Stanton Cross site. In default of agreement with the current land owner, the Council resolved in June 2007 to use compulsory purchase powers for the acquisition of this land. However, no Compulsory Purchase Order has yet been made.
5.50 It is therefore the case that the largest part of the WEAST site is not currently producing any dwellings to meet the housing need which exists in the area, and it is not clear when it will do so.
24 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
5.51 On the other hand, the position in relation to the appeal development is that, if outline planning permission were to be given in response to this appeal, there would be the prospect of dwellings becoming available on the site during 2011. Delivering dwellings on the site by 2011 would represent a challenging target, because there would remain the need for reserved matters applications to be approved, including the preparation of detailed infrastructure designs and the preparation of Design Codes for Phase 1 of the development; sites would need to be marketed; developers would need to be selected; detailed designs would need to be prepared and approved; and developers would need to mobilise resources to undertake the development on site. Advanced infrastructure would also need to be approved and constructed.
5.52 Those processes normally take around two years from the granting of outline planning permission, a view with which the Council did not disagree at the inquiry. The practice of which the Council’s witness is the principal has experience of starting major developments on site within two years of the grant of an outline planning permission at Peterborough, the eastern expansion of Milton Keynes and at Priors Hall, Corby. While delivering dwellings in 2011 would be a significant challenge, it would be a challenge which the Appellants would be happy to accept.
Applying the CSS policy tests
5.53 In relation to the appeal development, the only local infrastructure constraint which would restrict the development would be any failure to deliver the IWIMP. The Council accepted at the inquiry that this was the case. On the basis that the provision of IWIMP can (for the reasons outlined above) be assumed, the Appellants contend that the first proviso to CSS Policy 7 is met.
5.54 It is self evident that progress with the initial SUE at WEAST has been delayed. That is not disputed by the Council. It was identified as a location for major development in the Local Plan Inspector’s report of 1997 and in the adopted LP of 1999. The planning application for the site was made in 2004. There was a resolution to grant in 2006, and planning permission was granted in January 2008. The LP had assumed delivery of 500 dwellings in the period 2001 to 2006, but that has not been achieved.
5.55 The start date for WEAST is now identified in Table 13 of the CSS as 2008. No development on the Stanton Cross site to the east of the railway line has, however, yet taken place. There remains a need to acquire some land by compulsory purchase; there is a need for major new infrastructure, including a crossing of the Midland Main Line railway and a new crossing of the River Nene to connect with the A45 trunk road; and the viability of delivering the benefits offered under the Section 106 obligation offered in relation to the site is doubtful in the present economic circumstances.
25 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
5.56 Despite efforts by the developers to address these problems, as required by the proviso to CSS Policy 7(b), it is not clear when any start will be made on site within the major Stanton Cross element of the WEAST scheme, and therefore when any housing will be delivered by that scheme.
5.57 The provision of housing in Wellingborough relies heavily on the WEAST scheme and the Stanton Cross scheme in particular. Without completed dwellings being delivered by that scheme by 2011, the Council’s planned housing trajectory could not be delivered. If the possibility of providing dwellings on the appeal site were also to be rejected, the Council’s plans for housing growth would be in complete disarray. This is a very material consideration in favour of the grant of planning permission given the adverse impact there would otherwise be on the achievement of local, regional and national plans for housing growth. The housing pressures facing Wellingborough arise largely from elsewhere in England. They are strategic in their scale and implications. It is the Government’s priority that additional housing is brought forward here to meet national housing shortages. The second proviso to CSS Policy 7 is therefore also met.
5.58 In that situation, it is not necessary to go on to consider the third proviso to that Policy.
5.59 The housing trajectory already places considerable demands on delivery in the later phases of the currency of the Development Plan, in a Borough where delivery rates have historically struggled to meet much lower requirements. In the period 2001 to 2006, some 1,521 dwellings were completed in Wellingborough against a planned level of provision of 2,975. Between 2006 and 2011, 1,853 dwellings have been provided or are projected against a planned level of provision of 2,975. Between 2011 and 2016, therefore, it will be necessary to deliver 5,301 dwellings against a planned provision of 3,425, with a need for 4,284 dwellings in the period 2016 – 2021 against a planned level of provision of 3,425. The need for this backloading reflects the very slow start made in providing housing in the Borough.
5.60 It is against that background that the Council have clearly accepted in the AMR that there will need to be parallel development at Upper Redhill and WEAST in order to achieve the housing targets for the area. The provision of 1,100 dwellings at Upper Redhill by 2014, which the Council assume in the AMR and the CSS, simply could not be achieved if outline planning permission were not given for the appeal development now. Such a level of provision, with dwellings becoming available by 2011/2012, is also assumed in the NNDC programme of development (Document CD 7.5, pages 13 and 14). The Council are one of the partners who together make up the NNDC.
26 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
5.61 The Council’s position at the inquiry is therefore in conflict with the position that they have taken in their own AMR, in the CSS, and in the programme of development of NNDC.
5.62 Neither the AMR nor Bovis Homes, the promoters of Stanton Cross, suggests that any failure to achieve development at WEAST is to be attributed to any action taken by the Appellants or any associated company. To the extent that any such suggestion is made by interested parties, it cannot be sustained and is incorrect.
5.63 The Council suggest that it would be appropriate to advance development at WEAST and to restrain development at Upper Redhill because of issues related to the development of brownfield land. In fact, the Council’s adopted LP (Document CD1.6) makes it clear at paragraph A3.10 that WEAST is predominantly a greenfield site. Similar information is contained in the WEAST development guidance (Document CD2.8) at Figure 2.3 and paragraph 3.3.1. To the extent that WEAST contains brownfield land, it is in those areas where the Appellants have been actively promoting development, to the east of Eastfield Road and around the railway and station area.
5.64 Paragraph 3.68 of the CSS makes it clear that the phasing of the SUEs shown in Figure 13 on page 44 of that document is intended to be a broad indication. It neither says nor implies that the IWIMP should be provided by 2011. It simply assumes (just as the Council did in their AMR) that it will be possible for delivery of housing at the further Wellingborough SUE to commence within the period 2011-2016. It is explicitly stated that the phasing of the further SUEs may be brought forward if required to maintain a continuous supply of housing. That is precisely the case here. It is easy to see why that approach should be taken, when the delivery of housing is so high on the national, regional and local agenda.
5.65 Paragraph 3.62 of the CSS indicates a willingness to accept suitable interim solutions if delivery of housing in accordance with the requirements of the strategy is put at risk. There is an interim solution available in this case, which would allow the delivery of 1,500 houses before any access to IWIMP is required. The AMR, the CSS and NNDC’s programme of development all explicitly acknowledge a date for the start of work on Upper Redhill (2011) which must anticipate that IWIMP will not have been delivered.
5.66 Policy 9 of the CSS provides that the first choice for the distribution and location of development will be previously developed land in urban areas, followed by other suitable land in urban areas. It acknowledges, however, the approach of providing for further development in a small number of initial SUEs, with further SUEs (including that to the north west of Wellingborough) once these original SUEs have been successfully established. Certainly it accepts that WEAST should be the initial SUE in Wellingborough, but Figure 13 of the CSS clearly shows both SUEs delivering houses at the same time once the initial SUE has been established.
27 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
5.67 Policies 7 and 9 of the CSS need to be read together. It is quite clear, when read in the context of Policy 7, that the distribution and location issues dealt with in Policy 9 are not intended to trump the importance of delivery as an objective. The overall focus of the CSS is on delivery rather than on achieving a particular order of development. The Development Plan does not indicate that the prior development of WEAST should effectively be a pre-condition to development of the SUE to the north west of Wellingborough.
5.68 The Council also suggest that the grant of planning permission at Upper Redhill would flood the market with development land and effectively inhibit or make more difficult development at WEAST. In fact, delivery of housing at Stanton Cross is at present restrained not only by market conditions and viability, but by the land ownership problems referred to above. Turning this appeal application down would do nothing to remove the obstacles to progress at Stanton Cross.
5.69 The rate of development which is anticipated from both Stanton Cross and Upper Redhill was expressly referred to by Bovis Homes in the letter which comprises Appendix 1 within Document APP/1/5. The anticipated combined level of delivery of 700 dwellings per year coincides with the assumed level of delivery in the Council’s AMR. That letter reveals that Bovis Homes are comfortable with that level of overall production. They raise no objection to the contemporaneous development of Stanton Cross and Upper Redhill, and indeed have made no objection to the current appeal, despite having a representative present at various sessions of the inquiry.
5.70 There is thus no basis for suggesting that there would be any difficulty in progressing the two sites together, even if Stanton Cross were in a position to proceed and to deliver housing. Evidence was given by Professor Lock on behalf of the Appellants, backed by practical experience in other major growth locations such as Milton Keynes and London Docklands, that in situations like this it is in fact advantageous to have a significant volume of development which produces market interest and developer activity. This stimulates the market in a way which does not occur in smaller development areas. The current problems have more to do with the lack of availability of funds to buy houses rather than any real imbalance between supply and demand.
5.71 In fact, in this particular area it is an explicit objective of Government policy to achieve a supply of housing land on a scale which exceeds the market’s past rate of take up. This is the step change which Government policy requires as an important part of the response to the national predicament of acute housing shortage. Wellingborough is within a formally declared Growth Area, properly and lawfully embedded in the statutory Development Plan.
28 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
5.72 Appendix 2 to Document APP/1/5 contains the Government’s response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s analysis of the Government’s house building plans. This was published in May 2009. It makes it clear in paragraph 7 that, despite the current market downturn, there remains a strong, pent up demand for new homes, with the potential number of new households still increasing at a rate faster than the number of new dwellings provided. At paragraph 92 of the response, the Government specifically rejects the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendation that targets for the production of dwellings should be revised in the light of the market downturn.
5.73 That response was reinforced by a letter which CLG’s Chief Planner sent to all Chief Planning Officers on 12 May 2009, a copy of which also forms part of Appendix 2 to Document APP/1/5. That letter emphasises that Local Planning Authorities should work to ensure that land supply is in place to deliver more housing as the industry returns to health. That is seen as a necessary condition to facilitate a speedy recovery of the housing market when demand starts to pick up.
5.74 The position adopted by the Council in relation to the appeal development puts it fundamentally at odds with the Government’s position as set out above. There is no suggestion that it is appropriate to refuse to continue to grant planning permission for SUEs in the area from either NNDC or the JPU, indeed both the CSS and the NNDC programme of delivery assume the continued grant of planning permission.
5.75 A reason for refusal which relies on WEAST not having been successfully established is therefore a bad reason for refusal. It flies in the face of the importance of the delivery of housing in the Growth Area.
Coalescence
5.76 Although the issue of coalescence between the proposed development and the villages of Great Harrowden and Little Harrowden to the north was not pursued by the Council at the inquiry, it was an objection maintained by certain of the interested parties.
5.77 The adopted CSS removed the previous LP policy on strategic gaps. The Inspector took the view that PPS7 already controls development in the countryside. Policy 1 of the CSS accepts the principle of SUEs in and around Wellingborough. Paragraph 3.13 of the CSS implicitly accepts that the locations of SUEs have been selected to avoid the issue of coalescence between settlements. There is no definition in the CSS of what constitutes a strategic gap. The issue is left to be determined through master planning and consideration of the local landscape character.
29 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
5.78 In relation to this specific appeal site, the Council’s Wellingborough North SUE Planning Guidance (Document CD2.1) indicates the need for the prevention of coalescence between any development and the Harrowdens. The boundary shown on the map contained within the guidance is drawn so that most of the development should be below the ridge line to protect the setting of Great Harrowden. The defined boundary of the appeal development addresses that point, being mostly consistent with the 90 metres contour. That was in fact a change made to the application in October 2008 following discussion with the officers of the Council and representations received from interested parties.
5.79 At the time the planning guidance was adopted by the Council, consideration was also given by Members to the issue of whether Redhill Grange was to be protected as a separate community. The Council decided that Redhill Grange would not be dealt with as a separate community. It had been built as a planned extension to Wellingborough, and the original intention had been to build around 1,000 houses between the A509 and the Finedon Road Industrial Estate. The dwellings which have been built at Redhill Grange represent the first stage of this development. This can be seen on site, where estate roads end at a field in some places. Subsequently Development Plan decisions have favoured developing to the east first, but it has always been likely that eventually the rest of the area would be developed.
5.80 The Landscape Assessment submitted by the Appellants (Appendix 4 to Document APP/1/1) indicates that, with the built development at the 90 metres contour, there would be no significant impact on the villages of Great and Little Harrowden.
5.81 The appeal proposals fully respect the need to create a distinct setting for the Harrowdens. In total, the scheme would deliver more than 125 hectares of open space, approximately 85 hectares of which would be natural and semi natural open space. A substantial amount of that informal open space would lie directly to the south of Great Harrowden. Within that area, a good deal of new woodland planting would take place. It would be carried out at the start of the proposed development, and the land which lies between Great Harrowden and Redhill Grange would therefore have well established woodland planting before any built development was brought forward in that area as part of Phase 3. Such planting, together with the large areas of retained open space, would provide an enhanced setting for the village of Great Harrowden, compared with the current open arable land, which has few landscaped features.
5.82 The illustrative plans for the site show some provision for allotments and play areas above the 90 metres contour. Paragraph 26 of PPS7 states that Local Planning Authorities should ensure that planning policies in Local Development Documents address the particular land use issues and opportunities to be found in the
30 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
countryside around urban areas, recognising the importance of the countryside to those who live and work there, and the fact that such areas provide the nearest and most accessible countryside to urban residents. Planning authorities are therefore asked to aim to secure environmental improvements and to maximise a range of beneficial uses of such land. That approach should include improvement of public access and facilitating the provision of appropriate sport and recreation facilities.
5.83 The provision of allotments and children’s play areas within the area between the edge of the development and Great Harrowden would provide beneficial uses of that land by way of appropriate facilities for sport and recreation, allowing public access to an area which is currently not open to the public. Clearly the allotments and play areas would need to be sensitively located and well designed to integrate with the parkland proposed in the gap between the development and Great Harrowden. The appeal application is, however, in outline with all matters reserved, and the detailed siting and design of these facilities would therefore be the subject of reserved matters applications in due course, at which stage it could be ensured that the impacts which such facilities would have on the surrounding areas would be acceptable.
A planning obligation to secure community benefits and mitigation
5.84 CSS Policy 6 provides that new developments need to be supported by the timely delivery of infrastructure. That can be achieved by direct provision by the developer or by contributions towards the provision of local and strategic infrastructure required by the development, either alone or cumulatively with other developments. Such contributions will be negotiated between the developer and the Local Planning Authority, based on the adopted and emerging SPG listed in paragraph 4.5 above.
5.85 At the time the earlier application was considered by the Council, no Section 106 obligation had been finalised in relation to the proposed development at Upper Redhill. The Appellants were, however, in detailed discussions with the Council and the County Council on the issue, and broad heads of terms had been agreed, which were listed in the report on the earlier application which was presented to the Council (Document CD7.6). The Council’s officers considered that the negotiations were sufficiently advanced for them to be confident to report the application to the Council, and to recommend approval subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement.
5.86 What became the Council’s fourth reason for refusal has been addressed in relation to this appeal by continued negotiations between the Appellants, the Council and the Rule 6 parties. A Section 106 obligation dated 13 July 2009 has now been executed (Document APP/0/16). It is in the form of an Agreement because the County Council are party to it. The Council are not party to the
31 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Agreement, but the Agreement contains obligations to the Council, and there is annexed a separate Deed (referred to as “the Council’s Deed”), which relates to land which forms part of the appeal site but which is currently in the ownership of the Council. This land is not bound by the Agreement, but the intention is that, should the Council dispose of the land which it currently owns, the successor in title would be required to enter into a Deed in the form of the Council’s Deed (subject to amendments to identify correctly the parties to it) in order to be bound by the same planning obligations as those set out in the Agreement. Once the Council’s Deed is executed, liability under the two Deeds would be joint and several.
5.87 The obligation which has been executed includes:
a) The provision of all the necessary land for the IWIMP scheme (see Document APP/1/10), a total of more than 20 hectares, together with 4.30 hectares of the land required for the IWIMP link road and 0.80 hectare of land for the A509 link road, all at nil consideration. In addition, the link road elements would be built by the developer at a cost to the developer estimated at £2.4m, but at a saving to the County Council (based on their estimated costs) valued at £5,997,600 (see Document APP/0/10).
b) An approved pooled developer contribution to meet the cost of addressing the highways and transportation impact of the development on the town centre of Wellingborough. After allowing for discount to reflect the wider strategic benefit of works to be carried out by the developer as part of the development, this contribution would amount to up to £6,310,552.02 if the County Council require the developer to carry out the dualling of Niort Way between IWIMP and Gleneagles Drive, or £8,510,552.02 if that work is not required.
c) The payment of up to £2.5m to the County Council for the benefit of the HA to meet the cost of improvements to the strategic road network made necessary by the development.
d) Affordable housing comprising 20% of the total number of dwellings constructed on the site. This is in line with the request originally made by the Council. The Council accepted that there could be a 10% provision of affordable housing in the first phase of the development, so long as the percentage was eventually made up to 20% overall. This would assist the overall financial viability of the scheme. With the agreement of the Council, the Appellants would be able to provide affordable units outside the development to replace units on this development in the later phases.
e) A significant area of landscaping and open space within the development, with arrangements for long term management.
32 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
f) A contribution totalling £2m for the provision of indoor sports facilities in Wellingborough serving the development.
g) An area of land of 3.05 hectares for allotments for use by residents of the development.
h) A multi purpose community centre of approximately 540 square metres gross internal area.
i) A site of at least 0.12 hectare within the neighbourhood centre for the Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue Service, with a contribution of £250,000 towards the cost of fire and rescue facilities to serve the development.
j) A site of at least 0.12 hectare within the neighbourhood centre for the Police Service, with a contribution of £250,000 towards the cost of police or community safety facilities to serve the development.
k) A site of at least 1 hectare within the neighbourhood centre for the Northamptonshire Teaching Primary Care Trust, with a contribution of £500,000 towards the cost of a GP surgery and, if required, dentistry and other health related facilities to serve the development.
l) Reserved land for a waste collection facility within the neighbourhood centre.
m) A minimum of 10% of dwellings constructed to the Lifetime Homes Standard, and a minimum of 5% of all dwellings to be wheelchair accessible.
n) All market dwellings to be sold with a sustainability pack detailing energy efficient options available for purchase prior to the occupier purchasing the dwelling concerned.
o) The funding of flood mitigation measures, including a sustainable urban drainage system designed to ensure that surface water runoff from the development is no greater than the existing annual greenfield runoff.
p) Arrangements for the minimisation of waste during construction and the management of waste during both construction and occupation.
q) Two payments, each of £50,000, made at different stages during the development, to secure the integration of public art into the development.
r) The reservation of two 2.1 hectares parcels of land to provide at appropriate times two primary schools within the development, to be transferred to the County Council at nil value, with either
33 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
the schools being built by the developer to an agreed specification or with a financial contribution being made by the developer to the cost of each school, amounting in each case to £6.45m.
s) If the review of secondary school needs to be carried out in 2016 shows a requirement for a new secondary school in Wellingborough, the demand for which has arisen in part as a result of the development, the developer shall make an appropriate payment of up to £8m to meet that demand.
t) A travel plan with modal shift targets.
u) A route management strategy to militate against the diversion of trips on to less suitable routes travelling to and from the town centre of Wellingborough.
v) A public transport service level agreement for the provision of public transport services to the site.
The Agreement provides for all the payments required to be index linked, for an audit trail, and for repayment if any contribution proves not to be required for the intended purpose.
5.88 There is therefore now an executed Section 106 obligation, which responds to the issues identified by the Council and the Rule 6 parties. The timing of the contributions to which it commits the Appellants depends on phasing plans to be agreed with the Council in many cases, but some of the highways contributions are to be made immediately on the commencement of development and then on the occupation of the 400th dwelling; the first education contribution is to be made on the occupation of the 50th dwelling; and the first off site sports contribution, the first public arts contribution and the provision of the allotments site are linked with the occupation of the 999th dwelling. In that situation, the fourth putative reason for refusal put forward by the Council has been fully addressed.
Viability
5.89 The viability of the appeal development is a late ground of objection to the Upper Redhill scheme. Appendix 12 to Document CD7.6 (the report to the Council on the earlier application) indicates that the Section 106 offer would be subject to independent viability analysis by the Council in collaboration with EDAW and NNDC. There is no reference to this topic in the Council’s putative reasons for refusal of the appeal application or in their Statement of Case. The possibility that viability evidence would need to be given at the inquiry was mentioned at the PIM. In subsequent meetings between the parties in relation to the Section 106 obligation, however, the only reference to viability concerned the WEAST development. The issue of viability in relation to the obligation for
34 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
the appeal development was introduced by the Council only in a rebuttal statement of evidence produced on 26 May 2009. That is why the Appellants did not lead evidence on the issue of the viability of the appeal development and the Section 106 obligation relating to it.
5.90 The viability position in relation to WEAST was raised by Professor Lock in his statement of evidence on behalf of the Appellants delivered on 5 May 2009. That issue was raised in the context of the substantial burden imposed by the Section 106 obligation for the Stanton Cross development on that scheme. The Council have not challenged that evidence, but instead sought to argue that the Upper Redhill development would not be financially viable. The fact that this issue was raised only at a late stage is clearly demonstrated by Document LPA/2/7. This comprises the instructions given to Mr Durman, the witness who gave evidence for the Council on this issue. Those instructions reveal that Mr Durman was initially engaged purely to deal with the assessment of the land values which provide the background to the negotiation of the Section 106 obligation. The first time that his firm was instructed to consider the viability of the development was on or about 18 May 2009.
5.91 In effect, the Council now argue that the appeal development would not be viable at this time, and that it would remain in that situation until such time as the market in relation to land and property values in the area has recovered.
5.92 The starting point for the Council’s attempt to support that view is the model used in North Northamptonshire to assess the viability of major developments.
5.93 Some time ago, NNDC commissioned consultants known as EDAW/AECOM to provide a method for implementing the proposed Community Infrastructure Levy (or some other type of tariff system). That work was done, and in the meantime it has been used in North Northamptonshire to provide a standard method to determine the amounts of Section 106 payments that individual SUEs could afford without ruining their viability. This EDAW model is an independent financial model. It is not the property of the Appellants or of the Council.
5.94 In relation to this development, NNDC had been asked by the Council to use their model to explore alternative assumptions, and had agreed to do so. The Appellants were content to see the model used in that way, believing that it was an agreed standard for the whole of North Northamptonshire, and that its use in the inquiry would allow argument to focus on inputs and outputs, rather than on the model itself.
5.95 In the context of the inquiry, the first reference to viability as a ground of objection to the development came in Mr Durman’s
35 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
rebuttal proof of 26 May 2009 (Document LPA/2/1). This led to the need for a further rebuttal proof from Professor Lock (Document APP/1/6), which was put in on the first morning of the inquiry. On the following day, the Council then produced a document, apparently from EDAW (Document LPA/2/5, along with Documents LPA/2/2 and LPA/2/4, which related to the circumstances of its production). Subsequent correspondence from EDAW contained in Document LPA/2/6, however, indicated that EDAW did not regard LPA/2/5 as an authorised document. It was a draft in the course of consideration, which had been submitted to various parties for comment, and should not have been produced to the inquiry. EDAW specifically asked that it should be withdrawn.
5.96 The Council refused to withdraw what it transpired was a draft EDAW document. Instead, the Council seek to rely on that document.
5.97 The draft EDAW document indicates that the EDAW model has been run on the basis of land values in Wellingborough currently being £300,000 per acre (£741,270 per hectare). In fact, the Appellants contest that figure. There is no market evidence to support it. It is a figure at which any scheme in the country would struggle to be viable. As the housing market recovers, however, real transactions will quickly start to happen in the market at £750,000 to £800,000 per acre (£1,853,175 to £1,976,720 per hectare). EDAW are economists operating a model used to address viability. They are not land valuers.
5.98 Document APP/1/7 (an undated letter from Alfred Buller, whose qualifications and position in Bee Bee are not stated) argues that new build houses in Wellingborough are selling for £150 per square foot (£1,614 per square metre). This translates to £650,000 per acre (£1,606,085 per hectare). It would require only an 8.7% uplift in house prices for land values to reach £750,000 per acre (£1,853,175 per hectare) by 2012. This is below the forecast offered by Jones Lang LaSalle of 9% by 2012, and similar to the forecast of Cluttons of 8%. Both forecasts are appended to Document APP/1/7. The Appellants therefore argue that land values will return to £750,000 to £800,000 per acre (£1,853,175 to £1,976,720 per hectare) by around 2012. The period between now and 2012 would be required to invest in infrastructure on and to serve the appeal site.
5.99 The statutory AMR submitted by the Council to the Secretary of State expressly states that market conditions current at the end of 2008 have been taken into account in the assessments it contains. Those assessments include the delivery of development at Upper Redhill from 2011, which would require a start on the development now. Similarly, the programme of development of the NNDC (of which the Council are a partner) explicitly states that current market conditions have been taken into account in the making of their assessment of the timing of the delivery of development. The
36 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Council could point to no market change to justify their apparent change of view between the preparation of the AMR and the NNDC programme of development on the one hand, and the Council meeting of 4 February 2009 and the evidence given at the inquiry on the other hand.
5.100 The Council’s witness frankly accepted that predictions of market recovery in the present uncertain situation are subjective and difficult.
5.101 In support of their position in relation to future land values, the Council produce opinions from Experian, Savills and Knight Frank. None of these sources appears to have predicted the recession, and there is no particular reason why their analyses should be considered superior to others in predicting an upturn.
5.102 The Appellants take a different view from that now advanced by the Council. Their view is informed by their substantial experience in and commitment to the local market. They have backed that view by significant investment in land acquisition, scheme preparation, and (in relation to this particular site) in the appeal process. Their investment has continued, despite the unfolding recession. It is their view that, by 2011/2012, the market will have recovered sufficiently to allow housing delivery at Upper Redhill to proceed. The Appellants would then envisage delivering the 1,100 dwellings shown in the housing trajectory and the AMR by 2014.
5.103 The Appellants’ view is thus in line with the approach advocated by the Government in their response to the Environmental Audit Committee and in the advice given by CLG’s Chief Planner to all Chief Planning Officers. That advice is not to stop granting planning permissions in order to wait to see what happens to the market, but rather to ensure that planning permissions are in place and developments available to deliver housing at the earliest opportunity, in order to ensure that the demand which will accumulate during the current hiatus can be catered for without a significant series of delays and difficulties related to lack of supply.
5.104 UK Treasury forecasts for the UK economy, dating from April 2009 show that Gross Domestic Product is expected to continue to fall in 2009 (-3.9%), but to be positive again in 2010 (0.2%), and then to rise in 2011 (1.9%), 2012 (2.4%) and 2013 (2.6%). It is accepted that these are GDP forecasts rather than land value forecasts. Treasury forecasts are based on an average of several City and non City institutional forecasts. The consensus is that the national economy is expected to improve. The Appellants share this view, and expect house prices and therefore housing land values to improve at a similar time and at a similar pace. It is clear that Government policy is for planning permissions to be in place to catch the upturn in the economy in order to avoid having a time lag while the application process catches up.
37 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
5.105 The Appellants could envisage starting on site at Upper Redhill before land values have fully recovered. They started a major development in Corby more than a year ago in that situation.
5.106 The Appellants are informed and experienced developers, with an extensive knowledge of the local scene. They have negotiated a planning obligation which provides appropriate benefits to address the issues raised by the proposed development. That negotiation has taken place in the light of the economic situation which applies. The Appellants consider that the appeal development will be viable after having regard to the obligations they have agreed to accept. They should be allowed to back that judgement.
5.107 If any credibility is given to the Council’s view as to the future rate of growth in land values at Upper Redhill, it must apply equally to the prospects of a return to viability for WEAST. The issue is therefore neutralised as a material consideration.
5.108 For the avoidance of any doubt, it is not the Appellants’ contention that Upper Redhill should be preferred to WEAST. Both developments are necessary to fulfil the requirements of the Development Plan and the housing trajectory in the Council’s own AMR.
Other objections and representations
5.109 The Inspector who dealt with the examination in public of the CSS expressly found that the requirement for community involvement had been met.
5.110 It is accepted in the CSS that, although the figure of 2,300 dwellings is quoted for the proposed SUE to the north of Wellingborough, there is potential for further growth beyond 2021. The Council accept in their planning guidance for the North Wellingborough SUE that Upper Redhill could deliver 3,000 dwellings. This figure could be comfortably achieved at an average density of about 40 dwellings per hectare.
5.111 It is not the case that Phase 1 of the appeal development would be employment free. There would be some jobs in the district centre and some jobs in the first school. But the immediate policy of the Council is to focus employment in the centre of Wellingborough and around the railway station. The ES indicates that while the Upper Redhill scheme, taken alone, would slightly worsen the current position in Wellingborough, where there are some 1,000 fewer jobs than people seeking work, together with other planned major developments in the Borough, it is likely that there will be 5,300 more jobs than residents seeking work. Without the housing which would be provided by the appeal development, the position would be much worse. The planning guidance from the Council states that the employment in the SUE should be high tech and in the location in which the appeal proposals put it, namely in Phase 2.
38 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
The proposal is for an urban extension, not for a free standing new town. Nor is it accurate to state that the public transport contribution would be limited to five years.
5.112 In relation to the position of the neighbourhood centre within the development, the application is an outline application. The neighbourhood centre was moved to the currently proposed position following the receipt of the views from CABE on the location of amenities.
5.113 In relation to the impact of noise from the Finedon Road Industrial Estate on the proposed school and houses which would be located close to the boundary with the Industrial Estate, a 4 metres high barrier is proposed to be constructed adjacent to the eastern site boundary. This would be shielded by extensive planting. Noise predictions confirm that, with the recommended mitigation measures in place, the noise generated by the operations of the Industrial Estate would be reduced to less than marginal significance.
5.114 In relation to services and facilities, there is no objection to the appeal application from Anglian Water or from the National Grid. They are aware of the application. The Local Highways Authority do not object to the proposals for the spur road.
5.115 A Health Impact Assessment (Document AD4.7) was submitted with the appeal application. It was prepared in consultation with the Northamptonshire NHS Teaching Primary Care Trust, whose submission for resources was taken into account in the negotiation of the Section 106 obligation.
5.116 The appeal application would maintain as far as is reasonable the amenities enjoyed by existing residents of Redhill Grange by setting development back and maintaining an open view towards Great Harrowden along the A509. The construction of IWIMP would also remove heavy peak traffic from the A509, further improving the amenity of the existing residents. The maintenance of the existing woodland boundary along the A509 would maintain a measure of separation of Redhill Grange from the development. The movement framework connects Redhill Grange to the development, but does not allow through movement. No adverse effect on Redhill Grange is identified in the ES.
5.117 It is accepted that the Appellants have indicated a desire to make an easterly connection to the proposed Junction 8 with the A510 during Phase 1 of the proposed development, rather than during Phase 3. The Appellants believed that would be acceptable and indeed helpful to the residents of Redhill Grange. At the stage of Phase 3, the connection would cease to be available for general traffic, and its use would be limited by the installation of a bus gate. The Appellants would be happy, however, to accept a condition
39 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
requiring consultation with the residents of Redhill Grange on the detailed proposals for access.
5.118 In relation to alleged loss of biodiversity, the majority of the land is at present under intensive arable cultivation, with limited hedgerows and trees. As a result, the site is relatively species poor, with limited green corridors. The proposed scheme offers the potential to enhance the biodiversity of the locality very substantially by providing some 127 hectares of semi natural grassland and woodlands, providing important links with existing habitats such as Harrowden Brook. The development would also include a number of smaller green corridors and swales running throughout the urban form. These corridors would offer potential to create new habitat links.
5.119 The ecological and nature conservation implications of the appeal proposal are fully considered between pages 80 and 123 of the ES. The conclusion reached is that, with the mitigation proposed in each case, there is no significant impact save in relation to hedgerows, grassland and mature trees, where the impact will probably be beneficial in the long term. Neither Natural England nor the Wildlife Trust has objected to the appeal application. Both organisations have considered the application.
5.120 The retained open space would also provide open access for people, enabling people to move freely between residential areas and the existing town through a network of footpaths and cycleways.
5.121 It is clear from Document APP/1/5 (the Government’s response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s Analysis of the national house building plans) that the Government have rejected any suggestion that dealing with planning applications for housing development should be delayed in the light of the economic situation.
5.122 In relation to the traffic concerns of the Great Harrowden Parish Meeting, it should be noted that the Section 106 obligation provides for the sum of £2.5m to be paid for the benefit of the HA on commencement of the development. This funding can be drawn down by the HA as soon as required to ensure that no adverse impact is caused by the development on the strategic road network. Highway works carried out by the County Council would be completed in accordance with the development phasing programme, secured by a condition on the planning permission, and agreed with the Council. A proposed condition requires consultation with the residents of Redhill Grange before the various highway schemes are taken forward. There would therefore be a full opportunity to consider what schemes are appropriate in the context of the creation of a sustainable urban extension.
5.123 While the report to the Council concerning the duplicate of the appeal development stated that land to the east of the A509 is not included in the site for a further SUE in the CSS, and that inference
40 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
could be drawn from the Key Diagram on page 36 of the CSS, paragraph 3.84 of the CSS makes it clear that the Key Diagram identifies only the broad location of proposed SUEs. The locations are indicative only. Paragraph 5.2 of the Council’s more specific adopted planning guidance on the Wellingborough North SUE makes it clear that “The area to the east of the A509 has been included so that there are opportunities for integrating the Redhill Grange estate into the town. This could increase its sustainability by providing more easy access to local facilities”.
5.124 The document (with Document JB/2) on which Mr Burton places reliance (see paragraph 9.83 below) is a draft document. The adopted version of the planning guidance for the Wellingborough North SUE is Document CD2.1, and this is the document to which reference should be made.
5.125 In relation to the impact of the appeal proposals on archaeological remains, the application site contains a number of areas of archaeological interest. These have been assessed as varying from local to regional in importance. A number of the areas concerned have been included within proposed public open space, where, with appropriate landscape management, no impact to the remains would be experienced. In other areas, a comprehensive programme of archaeological mitigation measures, developed with and approved by the Council, would be implemented in order to mitigate their loss.
5.126 In relation to concerns regarding flooding, the site has been designed to have on site surface water attenuation, with discharge rates restricted to greenfield run off rates, in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Agency. The actual appeal site lies within Zone 1 (areas with little or no potential risk of flooding). The risk of flooding was discussed with the Environment Agency, Anglian Water and the Local Highway Authority during the preparation of the ES, and the risk was assessed in the light of their guidance on the area which would be potentially affected. Following extensive consultation, none of these statutory bodies object to the development proposals, having regard to the conditions and obligations proposed in conjunction with the development. Those proposals would provide effective run off control to avoid any further increased risk of downstream flooding.
5.127 In relation to the impact of the appeal proposal on the setting of historic buildings in the area, English Heritage have no objection to the appeal proposal. A large buffer of retained open space would lie between the edge of Great Harrowden and its listed buildings and registered garden and the northern edge of the development. The combined impact of retained open space together with no development above the ridge line at the 90 metres contour would effectively preserve the setting of Great Harrowden and its listed buildings. In fact, the restoration of a pastoral and wooded setting for the southern flanks of the village would be more appropriate to
41 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
the historic buildings within the village than the current intensive arable cultivation which takes place in large open fields.
5.128 In relation to the impact of lighting on night time skies, the appeal site is not one which could be described as having a naturally dark night sky at present. There is a considerable impact from the existing boundary of Wellingborough and from the housing at Redhill Grange. The wider countryside beyond the appeal site is also already subject to some night glow associated with the existing town. [Inspector’s note: These were findings which I confirmed on my night time site visit, although the eastern end of Furnace Lane and areas to the north of that point were much darker. This visit took place between 2300 on 11 June 2009 and 0115 on 12 June 2009. The night was relatively cloudless.] Given that the development would not go higher than the 90 metres contour and that the area between Great Harrowden and Little Harrowden will continue to be unlit, the impact of the proposed development would be minimal on that part of the wider countryside.
5.129 Most of the comments regarding lighting come from residents of Furnace Lane. These properties, however, have no visual interconnection with the appeal site. They are separated by substantial intervening topography and vegetation cover. One written representation from the Furnace Lane area accepted that the area is already subject to a night time impact from Finedon Road Industrial Estate and from a supermarket. Those developments do not have the modern lighting standards which would be used on the appeal development. Consequently they make more of an impact on the night sky.
5.130 Although accepting that there would be some impact of lighting arising from the development, the ES indicates that the increase in lighting at the appeal site should be seen in the existing context of Wellingborough. The wider area impacts would relate to skyglow, which should also be considered in the existing context. The conclusion is that the changes arising from the appeal development would not be sufficient to result in a material effect on the character of the area.
5.131 The socio-economic assessment for the ES was undertaken by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd. It specifically addresses the socio-economic impact on a wider area than Wellingborough, including the nearby Districts of East Northamptonshire, Northampton and Kettering (see paragraph 3.3 of the study within Document AD5.3).
5.132 There is no basis for any objection in principle to the appeal proposal. The proposal fits the requirements of the Council’s planning guidance in relation to the North Wellingborough SUE. The application is in any event an outline application, allowing for the adjustment of the scheme in relation to particularly sensitive issues.
42 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
The issues raised in the Secretary of State’s Statement of Matters
Conformity with the Development Plan
5.133 The appeal proposals are in conformity with the Development Plan and with the Council’s planning guidance for the SUE to the north west of Wellingborough, adopted in January 2009. In order to deliver houses from 2011, as indicated by the CSS, the appeal site needs the benefit of an outline planning permission now.
Consistency with PPS1
5.134 The proposals have been prepared to ensure social cohesion by providing a mix of households and a range of tenures consistent with the North Northamptonshire Housing Market Assessment (Document CD3.4). The proposals would provide local facilities and open spaces to meet the community’s needs. The scheme takes account of environmental assets on the site. The ES concludes that there would be no significant adverse impact arising from the development. The supporting Sustainability Strategy (Document AD4.5) provides a framework for the prudent use of natural resources. The proposals for employment use would create a new strategic employment development for the town, and could provide an appropriate location for the proposed Technology Realm anticipated to be created in each of the Growth Towns.
5.135 The appeal proposals have been developed through consultation with the Council, other interested stakeholders and local people. CABE reviewed earlier proposals, and were consulted on changes made as a result of consultation. The appeal application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement (Document AD4.2), which demonstrates that the proposals are well considered and appropriate to the location and setting. In reviewing the application, the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer commented that
“This application has been extremely well researched and presented. All of the main urban design aspects have been addressed including landscape setting, connectivity with the existing town, permeability/legibility, the built form and materials palette.” (Document CD7.6, Appendix 4).
The proposals aim to overcome the barriers to integration created by existing roads, connecting the proposed development and adjacent communities and making local facilities more accessible.
5.136 The proposals are in outline, but detailed Design Codes, to be agreed with the Council for each phase of the development, would ensure that access for all is achieved throughout the development. The Section 106 obligation offered includes provision that a minimum of 10% of dwellings would be constructed to the Lifetime
43 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Homes Standard, and a minimum of 5% of all dwellings would be wheelchair accessible.
5.137 The proposals are consistent with the published RSS, the adopted CSS and the Council’s adopted planning guidance for the North Wellingborough SUE. Approval of the proposals now is necessary to ensure the provision of dwellings from the site in accordance with the timescale envisaged by the CSS.
Consistency with PPS3
5.138 The appeal application is in outline, but it would provide a strong framework for delivering high quality housing development. The Design and Access Statement outlines broad design and layout objectives, and draws from local traditional housing styles and materials, as well as meeting the Government’s Code for Sustainable Homes targets.
5.139 The proposals would provide a mix of market and affordable homes, from one bed to five bed units, the precise mixture being informed by the North Northamptonshire Housing Market Assessment (Document CD3.4). Affordable housing includes both social rented and shared ownership tenures.
5.140 The development would be located at the existing urban edge, but it would be close to local facilities and existing employment areas. It would be well connected to the town centre and to the Railway Station by public transport. New facilities are proposed within the development including new primary schools, local shops, a health centre and a neighbourhood centre. These will create some additional jobs in the area, but there is also a major employment element included in the appeal proposals.
5.141 The appeal site is presently greenfield, but it is planned to make the most efficient use of the land. Housing densities are appropriate to the urban edge location, at just over 40 dwellings per hectare overall. There would be higher densities in the core of the development and lower densities on the urban edge, to soften the transition to the countryside beyond.
Consistency with PPG13
5.142 The appeal application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment (Documents AD6.1 to AD6.3), a Travel Plan (Document AD6.4), and a Public Transport Strategy (Document AD6.5). All of these have been prepared to a scope agreed with the HA, the County Council and the Council. The Transport Assessment and the Travel Plan are consistent with the requirements of PPG13 and the local infrastructure priorities outlined in the CSS and the County Council’s Transport Strategy for Growth (Document CD7.1). Parking standards would be in accordance with PPG13. No
44 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
remaining objection exists from either the HA or the County Council.
Conditions
5.143 The conditions put forward by the Appellants, ultimately in Document APP/0/13, are based on those originally suggested by the Council’s own officers in Document CD7.6. Without prejudice to the Council’s opposition to the appeal, the conditions in APP/0/13 are substantially agreed between the parties, save in relation to the acceptability, so far as the Council are concerned, of a Grampian condition prohibiting the commencement of Phases 2 and 3 until the IWIMP has been completed and brought into use, and in relation to the amount of time that should be allowed for the operation of that Grampian condition.
5.144 The conditions proposed would provide that, in respect of Phase 1, all the reserved matters applications must be made within three years of the permission, with commencement then limited to five years from the permission or two years from the final reserved matters approval. In respect of Phases 2 and 3, up to ten years from the date of permission would be allowed for the submission of reserved matters, both because of the need to await the construction and opening of IWIMP, but also to respond to market conditions, a point touched on in the letter from CLG’s Chief Planner of 12 May 2009 (Appendix 2 to Document APP/1/5). Development would commence within twelve years of the date of permission or five years from the date of the final approval of the last reserved matter for Phases 2 and 3. This is not an unreasonable request in relation to a development of this scale and complexity.
5.145 The Appellants do not claim that there is certainty as to the date at which IWIMP funding will be provided and the road constructed, but, from the point of view of the delivery of the growth agenda, it is important that planning permission should be in place and be structured in a way which encourages progress with the development. The alternative suggested by the Council (a condition prohibiting the commencement of any development until IWIMP has received all necessary statutory consents and full funding has been committed) would prevent the earlier delivery of 1,500 dwellings in Phase 1 of the scheme, when the HA, the County Council, the JPU and the Council’s own officers agree that Phase 1 of the development could take place without the necessity for IWIMP.
5.146 If the Council consider when the reserved matters applications for Phase 1 are submitted, that the existing ES does not provide adequate information regarding that phase of the development or that it represents a substantial change, they could seek further environmental assessment of Phase 1 alone. Aspects of the Section 106 benefits applicable to Phase 1 would now be delivered at various stages during the course of Phase 1 rather than only on the
45 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
occupation of 1,500 dwellings in response to the concerns of some objectors.
Obligation
5.147 The obligation which has been executed on behalf of the Appellants is described at paragraphs 5.84 to 5.88 above. It promises a range of benefits which would be provided in addition to the substantial benefit of the delivery of a significant amount of necessary housing in a growth area. For the reasons outlined above between paragraph 5.89 and 5.108, the Appellants contend that it has been shown that the development proposed is viable, even having regard to the extensive range of benefits which would be provided.
5.148 The obligation took time to negotiate, in particular in relation to affordable housing. The Council were originally seeking a proportion of the market housing at a discount, and it was only at a late stage that this demand was dropped.
6. THE CASE FOR THE COUNCIL
The material points are:
The application process
6.1 When the original application in this case was considered by the Council on 4 February 2009, there was a presentation on behalf of the Appellants in support of the application. This was followed by a presentation by one of the Council’s Planning Officers of the written report regarding the application. A number of objectors to the application then made representations to the Council. Following a response on behalf of the Appellants to the points which had been raised, there was a debate by Members of the Council on the application.
6.2 Voting on the application was carried out in two stages. The first stage involved establishing whether the meeting was disposed to grant or to refuse the application. This was necessary because it had become clear during the debate that a sufficient number of Councillors had reservations about the application to raise the prospect that it would be refused. The second stage of decision making was used to secure clarity as to the exact planning reasons for the decision on the application.
6.3 Following the passing of a first motion to refuse the application, there was a discussion between Members and officers in which the officers offered advice as to which of the issues of concern to Members amounted to valid planning reasons for a decision to refuse. The reasons for refusal which Members had raised were identified, and were then the subject of the second stage voting. This is in line with the guidance given in paragraph 10.3 of the
46 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Local Government Association publication “Probity in Planning” (Document LPA/0/8). Document LPA/0/11 sets out a formal minute of the Council meeting of 4 February 2009. The reasons for refusal of the earlier application established at that meeting have been identified as the putative reasons for refusal of the appeal application.
The deliverability of IWIMP
6.4 The appeal proposal indicates that Phase 1 of the development will be served from the existing principal highway network, and that Phases 2 and 3 will commence following completion of the IWIMP. The Appellants anticipate that IWIMP will be constructed during the building of Phase 1 of the development.
6.5 Although the County Council have funding from the GAF to facilitate the making of a detailed planning application for IWIMP, in the absence of planning permission it cannot be assumed that consent would be granted at any particular point in time. There is often public opposition to significant highway schemes.
6.6 The Appellants propose that planning permission for the appeal development should be made subject to a condition requiring the construction and opening of IWIMP before any development on Phases 2 and 3 of the appeal proposal could be occupied.
6.7 There is no absolute rule that the existence of difficulties, even if apparently insuperable, must necessarily lead to a refusal of planning permission for a desirable development. It is possible to impose a condition prohibiting development until a specified action has been taken. It is open to the Secretary of State to maintain, however, as he does in paragraph 40 of Circular 11/95 as a matter of policy, that for such a Grampian condition to be acceptable, there must be at least a reasonable prospect of the action in question being performed within the time limit imposed by the permission. The Secretary of State’s policy on that matter is not the only consideration to which regard must be had, but it is a material consideration.
6.8 In fact, the Council consider that there is no reasonable prospect that IWIMP will be delivered within the time limit imposed by any permission granted in this case. The Council say that that time limit should be five years from the grant of any outline permission, the date by which Phase 1 should have been commenced.
6.9 At present, there is no planning permission for IWIMP; the business case has not been made; there is no public funding identified and available for the construction of the road; there is no clarity on the availability of private sector funding to finance in part the construction of IWIMP; and the land over which it is proposed to build the road is under the control of the Appellants, who have already demonstrated a willingness at WEAST to frustrate attempts
47 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
to bring forward necessary infrastructure to advance their own private commercial interests. The cumulative uncertainty from these factors means that the reasonable prospect test cannot be satisfied.
6.10 While the County Council attach a high degree of priority to IWIMP, and the Appellants own the land necessary for the construction of the road, Appendix F to Document LPA/0/5 demonstrates that appropriately qualified consultants advising the regional funding body identified potentially significant policy conflicts affecting the IWIMP scheme, such as substantial adverse impacts on the local environment, mode shift, freight mode shift, carbon dioxide emissions and better public transport access. These conflicts with policy raise a question whether the IWIMP scheme will have any chance of securing regional funding in a situation where there is substantial competition for limited resources.
6.11 There are four potential sources from which the £33m currently estimated as the cost of building the IWIMP could be gathered. These are private sector contributions, CIF, GAF and RFA.
6.12 The position with regard to private sector funding is clear from Document APP/0/10. The highway works which the Appellants will undertake in connection with IWIMP have a value to the Local Highway Authority of £5,997,600. In addition, all of the land necessary for the IWIMP would be transferred to the Appellants free of charge (Document APP/0/10, as amended by Document APP/1/10). This clearly has a value, perhaps £1.5m, although land values in the area are contentious in the present economic situation. It would leave, however, a public sector requirement of the order of £25m to be found and applied to the construction of the IWIMP within the next five years.
6.13 The first potential source for such funding would be CIF Round 2, but no contribution could be expected from that source, as the money could not be spent by 31 March 2011. That is an essential requirement, as demonstrated by paragraph 19 of Document LPA/1/9. There is no certainty of such funding being available in future CIF rounds. Although the funding is aimed at providing transport infrastructure to assist the delivery of housing in the growth areas, there will be many competing schemes in future years, and there is no information on the total amount of money which will be available from CIF or whether the criteria for its allocation will change.
6.14 The second potential source of public sector funding is GAF. Document CD7.5 shows that the IWIMP scheme is in Priority B, which is in fact the lower of only two levels of priority. There are five road schemes in Priority A, and three other road schemes in Priority B. Document CD7.5 also reveals that modal shift is a much higher priority for GAF investment than new road building. Although GAF has been allocated to assist with preparing a planning
48 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
application for IWIMP, there is no indication that there would be any contribution for the construction of the road.
6.15 The final potential source of public sector funding is RFA. As indicated above, the RFA Final Report of February 2009 (Document LPA/0/5) dismisses any prospect of funding for IWIMP, having applied a methodology of assessing policy fit and risk which is shown by paragraph 1.3 of the Final Report to be explicitly endorsed by the Government. Paragraph 1.15 of the Report indicates that the findings have been endorsed by the East Midlands Regional Assembly. It should therefore be accorded weight.
6.16 Paragraph 2.10 of the Final Report indicates that the combined funding requirements of all the remaining schemes very significantly exceeded the funding available through the RFA during the RFA2 period. IWIMP is absent from the first five years package of schemes approved in Table 5-3 on page 24 of the Final Report on RFA2. Although there is a residual discretion fund of £117.8m, this is to be allocated across the eleven Housing Market Areas in the region. There is no basis to conclude that one scheme which performs poorly against RFA policy in one part of one Housing Market Area will be allocated 20% of that total sum.
6.17 It is accepted that the Isham Bypass did not score highly in the technical report (Document LPA/0/5) but nevertheless was included in the final funding package. It is accepted that there is a role for political priorities and choices to play a part in the making of funding decisions.
6.18 It should be noted that the County Council in their SCG with the Appellants (Document APP/0/6) refer in encouraging terms at paragraph 13.12 to the 2007/8 Progress Report of November 2008 on the RFA, rather than to the Final Report of February 2009, which is very discouraging.
6.19 The reality is that no prospect of funding can be demonstrated from CIF, GAF or RFA, and no other means can be shown of making up the shortfall of around £25m required to construct the IWIMP. The Appellants can only suggest that IWIMP will appear to be a more impressive scheme when it is worked up and considered in the RFA3 Round.
6.20 What the Appellants should do is to hold their development application until a full set of statutory Orders for the IWIMP has been confirmed, and there is a clear indication of the availability of all the necessary funding for the road. At that stage, there would be no objection to a short life planning permission subject to a Grampian condition. The intervening delay would allow WEAST to become established and the process advocated by the CSS in that regard would have been followed.
49 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
6.21 For now, this appeal application should be rejected until the provision of IWIMP has been secured. It is a fundamental piece of infrastructure, which is essential for the creation of an effective SUE at Wellingborough North.
6.22 It is the totality of the appeal application which is the proposal under consideration at the inquiry. That is the only proposal which has been the subject of an EIA and a master planning exercise. The separate phases proposed cannot be regarded as separate forms of development in themselves. Phase 1 of the proposed development has not been the subject of an EIA which considers the traffic, landscape and social impacts of building 1,500 houses, and how those impacts can be mitigated if Phases 2 and 3 do not proceed. The ES refers to the phasing of the development, but it does not assess the individual phases separately.
6.23 Some elements included in Phase 1 of the scheme would be inappropriate if the development went no further. An example is the eastern access route from Junction 8, which would run for some distance from the A510 through open land before reaching and running through the existing Redhill Grange Estate to reach Phase 1. There would be no rationale for this layout in the absence of IWIMP. A proposal for a 1,500 dwelling SUE would surely have included the development of land to the east of Redhill Grange, so justifying in planning and financial terms bringing an accommodation road through the land. This would have the effect of lowering the land area requirement within the current Phase 1 area. The built development boundary could then be moved southwards, away from Great Harrowden, and follow more closely the boundary set by the existing Redhill Grange estate.
6.24 Moreover, many of the benefits to be provided alongside the housing development arise only during Phases 2 and 3. To grant a consent which contemplates only the development of Phase 1, therefore, would be to create a situation in which the public would have been misled. There might have been much more objection to the development proposal had it been realised that Phases 2 and 3 might not occur.
6.25 If the proposed IWIMP Grampian condition fails the reasonable prospect test, the Secretary of State should not grant consent for Phase 1 without the assurance of the future availability of the various public benefits associated with Phases 2 and 3.
6.26 The sustainability credentials of the appeal proposal would be severely prejudiced if the development as a whole were not able to be delivered. Implementation of Phase 1 only would give rise to a scale and form of development that was unsatisfactory and unsustainable as an urban extension, in conflict with the objectives to achieve sustainable forms of development set out in both PPS1 and the CSS. The form and layout of Phase 1 is only justifiable in
50 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
the context of it being an interim position and part of the larger development scheme that is proposed.
6.27 The CSS requires that SUEs “will be of sufficient scale to include a mix of homes, jobs and other uses and to deliver the high quality infrastructure, facilities and environment needed to support a step change in the rate of housing development and to create thriving communities where people want to live and work”. Phase 1 of the appeal proposal in isolation would not meet those requirements.
The order of development of SUEs at Wellingborough
6.28 In the 1990s, the LP process considered the need for and location of expansion for Wellingborough. Expansion to the east of the town was preferred to development to the north in the adopted 1999 LP, despite the fact that Redhill Grange had earlier been developed to the north in the expectation that further development would follow in that area. Continuing development to the north was rejected, because it would represent a major intrusion into open countryside.
6.29 The 1999 LP had to be reviewed in 2004, however, because the approved level of development to the east could not accommodate the scale of development that had subsequently proved to be required. The review extended the eastern development area to allow a greater level of provision of housing, leisure and employment uses.
6.30 The CSS carried forward the LP commitment to WEAST as the initial SUE for the town. In order to meet housing requirements over the longer plan period, however, it introduced the possibility of further SUEs, including one to the north west of Wellingborough, which could be developed once the initial Wellingborough SUE was established.
6.31 The Council remain committed to the realisation of a SUE at WEAST first. WEAST is the most sustainable location for an urban extension of Wellingborough. The conclusions of the LP in that regard were based on broad policy considerations which remain relevant today. Development to the east of the town would offer the best linkages with the existing urban area; new housing would be closely linked with the major employment areas of the town; and there would therefore be sustainability benefits. WEAST contains some brownfield land, in contrast to the appeal site, which is entirely greenfield, and contains more than 200 hectares of the best and most versatile agricultural land (within Grade 3a). [Inspector’s note: The Council did not consult DEFRA about this at the time of receipt of the planning application, because the view was taken at that time that the proposal was not in conflict with the Development Plan – see Document LPA/0/12. The Council now take the view that this matter was before DEFRA when the CSS was under consideration.]
51 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
6.32 The Council have demonstrated their commitment to WEAST by funding substantial pre-development costs, even though the Council own no land within the area. That investment has been made to provide an opportunity to bring high added value new technology companies to the area, to improve the employment offer in the town, and to provide the basis for regenerating the town centre, bringing benefits for the whole of the Borough.
6.33 The major development area within WEAST, Stanton Cross, was in a variety of land ownerships. The Council supported the land owners as they formed a consortium in order to seek a land equalisation agreement, with the appointment of a developer (Bovis Homes) capable of bringing about one master plan and planning application for the main development. The Wellingborough East Development Framework SPG was prepared, consulted upon and adopted in November 2003. An outline planning application for Stanton Cross was submitted in August 2004. Following extensive consultation, the application was approved by the Council in March 2006, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.
6.34 That Agreement was negotiated in the knowledge that, as a result of viability issues, the scheme would not be able to provide the full range of planning contributions which had been envisaged. The viability issues were considered and, through NNDC, the Council satisfied themselves that the information supplied by the developer was accurate and verifiable. The Section 106 Agreement was concluded only after that had been done. That is why the Agreement was not executed until June 2007. The formal planning permission was issued on 28 January 2008.
6.35 Progress at Stanton Cross is still held up, however, because of difficulties in securing two of the required accesses to the site.
6.36 The owner of land required to provide Access Route 2 has not been prepared to agree terms for the disposal of the necessary land, despite an indication by the Council in June 2007 of preparedness to use compulsory purchase powers to acquire the land concerned.
6.37 In addition, a new bridge over the railway line needs to be provided to create Access Route 4. This will be the principal access point to WEAST from the town centre. Planning permission for the railway bridge was granted in June 2005, and the Council received an offer of £10.6m in Government funding to bring forward that key piece of infrastructure. However, following the acquisition of land along the bridge and road alignment by Bee Bee, it proved impossible for Bovis Homes to secure a licence to deliver the bridge. Bee Bee wished to pursue a different bridge scheme. That could not be achieved within the required timescale, and the majority of the approved Government funding was therefore lost.
6.38 The CSS has reintroduced Wellingborough North as a “follow on” SUE. Policy 9 of the CSS permits the appeal site to come forward
52 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
once the development at WEAST is successfully established. The development at WEAST is not successfully established. It follows that the appeal proposal is in conflict with the principal SUE policy in the CSS, and can only come forward under an exceptions policy.
6.39 CSS Policy 7 only allows the order of SUE development to be changed where paragraph (a) of Policy 7 applies, that is, where strategic and local infrastructure constraints can be resolved at an earlier date. The Appellants agreed that if this “earlier date” is a reference to the date in Figure 13 of the CSS, then in relation to Wellingborough North that date is 2011. The only infrastructure constraint standing in the way of Wellingborough North is the need to deal with the highways and transportation constraint, which cannot be resolved without the provision of IWIMP. There is no existing commitment to the delivery of IWIMP. As indicated above, it does not have planning permission, and it does not have an ascertained source of funding. The Appellants’ witness was prepared to agree that there was no prospect of the IWIMP constraint being resolved by 2011. In that situation, not only is there no reasonable prospect of the delivery of IWIMP within the life of the planning permission sought in this appeal, but there is no prospect of delivery by 2011. The appeal proposals cannot therefore take advantage of the exception in Policy 7.
6.40 Thus the appeal proposals are in conflict with Policy 9 of the CSS, and they cannot fulfil the requirements to engage the exception set out in Policy 7. They are therefore in conflict with the Development Plan, and the statutory presumption contained in Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 against the grant of planning permission applies.
6.41 The underlying purpose of Policy 7 of the CSS is to ensure a continuing supply of housing to complement that provided within the initial SUE. A grant of planning permission in relation to this appeal would in fact risk further delays in bringing forward the WEAST development at Stanton Cross. The programme of delivery document “Driving Sustainable Growth” (Document CD7.5), which the Appellants participated in producing, anticipates Stanton Cross delivering houses in 2010/2011. The Council’s AMR (Document CD3.8) concurs with this view, and predicts very substantial numbers of houses produced by Stanton Cross by 2014. All the evidence indicates that, if Stanton Cross is left to flourish, it will deliver houses in accordance with the CSS strategy.
6.42 Producing a further SUE to deliver houses at the same time would create excessive amounts of committed housing land in Wellingborough, at a time when the housing market is in extreme difficulty nationally. Excessive housing supply relative to housing demand would risk suppressing land values, introduce competition for resources, damage viability and risk diverting attention from Stanton Cross. To grant permission for development on the appeal site while Stanton Cross is being built would frustrate the
53 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
development of Stanton Cross and make it harder to deliver the five year housing supply. Making more housing land available at Wellingborough North would reduce actual housing coming forward at Stanton Cross. It is very important that Stanton Cross should come forward as quickly as possible, and that nothing should be done to impede it.
6.43 The Council accept that because of falling land values the development at Stanton Cross is not viable now. It is not possible to say when it will be viable. The Council consider that Wellingborough North will be viable by at least 2020, but Wellingborough North should be held up until Stanton Cross is viable.
6.44 It is accepted that neither NNDC, as the body responsible for delivering the growth agenda for the area, nor Bovis Homes, as the lead developer of Stanton Cross, has objected to the appeal development on the ground that development of WEAST would be prejudiced.
6.45 However, the concurrent development of Stanton Cross and Wellingborough North was suggested to the CSS by Bovis, as indicated in Appendix 1 to Document APP/1/5, but it was rejected in the CSS in favour of a consecutive order. Again, therefore, the appeal proposals are in conflict with the provisions of the Development Plan.
6.46 The Appellants suggest that, in the absence of a planning permission for Wellingborough North now, the housing requirements of the RSS and the CSS would be jeopardised, and that this would invite applications from promoters of less suitable locations for housing development. In fact, however, paragraph 71 of PPS3 refers back to paragraph 69 in order to make it clear that, even where there is not a five year housing supply identified, the spatial strategy for the area should be upheld in dealing with housing applications.
6.47 It is accepted that the Council’s position in relation to the development of Wellingborough North at the inquiry is at odds with the line taken by the Council in the AMR and in the NNDC Programme of Development (Document CD7.5) in relation to the timing of the delivery of dwellings from the site. Only limited weight should be given to the former document, however. It deals with a wider range of matters than simply housing, and does not include a detailed consideration of the planning merits of a development proposal. The latter document refers at page 13 to planning permission for the appeal development being anticipated within six months of October 2008, but that was obviously subject to consideration of the actual application. The position taken by the Council at the inquiry is, however, in line with the Development Plan as a whole. Change is a constant factor in the planning
54 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
system. It is essential to consider the contemporary position of the material which influences the planning decisions.
Section 106 obligation
6.48 The achievement of a satisfactory obligation is of fundamental importance in relation to a development of the scale and nature of the appeal application. An important objective of the obligation is to ensure that a sustainable form of development is achieved.
6.49 A Section 106 obligation has been under negotiation between the Council and the Appellants for some time. It was initially thought likely that debate about the obligation at the inquiry would concern the content of the obligation, because it was believed that the Appellants, in order to secure permission for a financially viable form of development, would seek to drive down the range and extent of contributions to the external costs of the development sought by the Council under Section 106.
6.50 The Inspector asked at the PIM that the terms of any obligation should, so far as possible, be resolved before statements of evidence needed to be finalised. Rather than that, a draft of the Section 106 obligation was produced by the Appellants only in stages as the inquiry progressed. Eventually it became clear that the obligation offered by the Appellants would provide the full range of benefits which the various relevant statutory authorities had sought in the context of Circular 05/2005.
6.51 The Section 106 obligation would deliver 20% of the total development as affordable housing, rather than the 30% target set by CSS Policy 15. A 10% provision would be accepted in the first phase of the development to assist viability, with a greater percentage in later phases to achieve the 20% figure overall.
6.52 The content of the obligation eventually executed is therefore satisfactory to the Council and the Rule 6 parties in terms of the contributions offered. That is not, however, the end of the matter. Evidence produced by the Council indicates that the financial burden on the development which fulfilling the terms of the obligation would impose would make the development non-viable.
6.53 The Appellants say that this is what has happened in relation to the Stanton Cross development at WEAST. They say that the Section 106 Agreement in relation to Stanton Cross will need to be renegotiated if the development is to proceed at current land values. That is the case even though that obligation was subject to an independent viability analysis, and the Agreement was not executed until this had been done. Having satisfied themselves, through NNDC, that the information supplied by Bovis Homes as lead developer was accurate and verifiable, the Council accepted that the Stanton Cross scheme would not be able to provide the full range of planning contributions which had originally been sought. The Council adopted a flexible approach in accordance with paragraph B10 of Circular 05/2005 and in line with that adopted in
55 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
the decision of the Secretary of State in relation to APP/T0355/A/08/ 2073713 (Document LPA/0/4). But even after that process was completed, the Appellants contend that making available the benefits eventually provided for in the Stanton Cross Agreement will be “a dragging anchor on the delivery of the proposals”.
6.54 If that point is correct, it is clearly appropriate to look vary carefully at the viability of the obligation offered in the present case, where there is now a commitment to provide the full range of requested benefits.
Viability
6.55 Care needs to be taken to avoid a Section 106 obligation which offers substantial benefits which the development cannot afford. In raising the need for a Section 106 obligation, the Council were automatically raising the issue of the viability of any obligation offered. The Appellants were specifically advised at a meeting on 7 May 2009 that viability evidence would be produced.
6.56 There is a need for an accurate balancing exercise in relation to the viability of a Section 106 obligation, as evidenced by the decision in Document LPA/0/4. The necessary starting point for such an exercise is a proper analysis of what the site can afford. In this case, the Appellants have offered no authoritative evidence on that issue.
6.57 The Council instructed an appropriately qualified valuation witness, Mr Durman of Drivers Jonas, to enter into discussion with EDAW about the appeal proposal, with a view to producing evidence which would provide advice to the inquiry about the viability of the development. This was to be done on an open book basis, based on data and assumptions which all parties could see and upon which all parties could comment.
6.58 The EDAW model has been constructed as a viability test, to assess what gross development land values would need to be generated from the sale of serviced, consented development land through the course of the development in order for a scheme to be viable. The model enables various future scenarios to be tested by inputting specific growth assumptions.
6.59 The assumed revenue that would be generated from a scheme is shown. The model then deducts all the costs of development, including land acquisition costs, site development costs, fees and selling costs, profit and the cost of complying with any Section 106 obligation.
6.60 The revenue and costs are placed within a cashflow, and explicit growth assumptions are used to inflate values and costs throughout the course of the development. Interest charges are applied to the cashflow on an annual basis, and deducted to produce a net cashflow. This figure is then discounted back to the present day in order to establish the present value of the cashflow. The net present value is shown as a surplus or as a deficit, on which viability is assessed.
56 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
6.61 Following an exchange of correspondence with EDAW (copied to the Appellants) about the product of the application of the model to the appeal development, the Council submitted to the inquiry what was described by EDAW as “our final submission” on day two of the inquiry. This is Document LPA/2/5. On the following day, however, a further document from EDAW was placed before the inquiry (Document LPA/2/6). This stated that Document LPA/2/5 should not have been submitted into evidence until all parties had responded to it with comments. EDAW asked that the paper should be withdrawn until all parties had responded with comments. At that point, EDAW stated that they would provide a report to inform the case on viability.
6.62 The Council refused to withdraw Document LPA/2/5, and no further report from EDAW on viability was received before the closure of the inquiry on 16 July 2009. The Council contend that LPA/2/5 “is a document to which the highest weight should be attached in the determination of this appeal” (see paragraph 89 of Document LPA/0/13).
6.63 What LPA/2/5 demonstrates is that :
a) If the development is modelled with a starting land sale value of £300,000 per acre (£741,270 per hectare), rising to £750,000 per acre (£1,853,175 per hectare) by 2016, with land acquisition at £100,000 per acre (£247,096 per hectare) for 622 acres (252 hectares), the development would make a significant loss if it is commenced prior to land value recovery.
b) If the development is modelled with similar land sale values, but with land acquisition at £5,000 per acre (£12,354 per hectare), then the scheme would show a surplus.
c) If the development is modelled as at (a) above, but with land sale value rising to £720,000 per acre (£1,779,048 per hectare) by 2013 (reflecting an optimistic view that house prices may recover by 2013) then the net present value is still negative.
6.64 Each of those scenarios is based on cost information provided by the Appellants. Each of them allows for a reduction to reflect the affordable housing element of the proposed scheme. That reduction is based on an assumed tenure split of 70% social rented and 30% shared equity (which is not in fact the split provided for in the executed Section 106 Undertaking). Each scenario is based on an assumed cost of meeting the Section 106 obligation which could not reflect the actual cost which would arise from the completed obligation, because such detail was not known when the model was run. Each scenario assumes commencement of development in terms of infrastructure in 2010. The second scenario can effectively be discounted, because the Appellants provided evidence to the inquiry that agreements they had entered into with the landowners concerned obliged them to pay for land at a rate of £100,000 per acre (£247,096 per hectare).
57 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
6.65 The document underlines the difficulty of producing any reliable estimate of future land values in the present circumstances. It states, however, that economic forecasters anticipate that 2016 will be the earliest date at which house prices will recover sufficiently to generate the required revenues. To achieve the growth envisaged by the third scenario would require land values to rise by 40% in 2011 and 45% in 2012. The document suggests that it is debateable whether such exponential growth is realistic. It is suggested that the first scenario is the most likely, and in that scenario, even in 2016, the value is substantially negative. The proposal would therefore have to wait until some date beyond 2016 before development commenced in order for house prices to recover further.
6.66 When Mr Bullen suggests in paragraph 5.98 above that an uplift of only 8.7% in house prices would be required to return to previous land values by 2012, it is because he has not allowed for the fall in values since the time of the report to which he refers (2006). EDAW have been quite happy to use Mr Durman’s figure of £150 per square foot (£1,614 per square metre) to equate to a land value of £300,000 per acre (£741,270 per hectare)
6.67 It is therefore the case that the appeal proposals are brought forward in a policy context which seeks and requires an immediate and urgent delivery of housing, and the proposals rely upon that policy approach for their justification. Yet Document LPA/2/5 suggests that no houses will be built on the appeal site until some period beyond 2016. The document therefore demonstrates that the appeal proposals cannot advance the policy imperative from which they derive their justification. If permission is granted in the hope of early delivery, only to find that the Section 106 obligation offered in this case turns out to be a fantasy document, subject to just the same criticism as the Appellants make regarding the WEAST Section 106 Agreement, then the outcome could be the need for the later renegotiation of the obligation. That could result in a development which did not deliver the benefits required to ensure a sustainable development.
6.68 On behalf of the Appellants, it was suggested that they had undertaken their own viability analysis, and that this showed that the development would be profitable and could proceed. That alternative viability analysis was never produced to the inquiry, however. It was therefore not possible for its contents to be known (other than in those most general terms) or examined or challenged.
58 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
The issues raised in the Secretary of State’s Statement of Matters
Conformity with the Development Plan
6.69 The appeal development would be in clear and obvious conflict with the Development Plan for the area.
6.70 CSS Policy 9 makes provision for a SUE to the north west of Wellingborough once the SUE to the east of the town has been successfully established. That has not yet happened. CSS Policy 7 permits reconsideration of the phasing of SUEs, but the lack of commitment to the provision of the necessary infrastructure for Wellingborough North (the IWIMP) means that Policy 7 is not engaged.
6.71 The appeal development is also in conflict with CSS Policy 6, which provides that planning permission will be granted for development in accordance with the phasing in the CSS, subject to solutions to infrastructure problems being resolved.
6.72 In the absence of Phases 2 and 3 of the appeal development, which are dependent on IWIMP, the appeal proposal would not represent a sustainable form of development. It would therefore be in conflict with CSS Policies 13 and 16, which require sustainable forms of development.
Consistency with PPS1
6.73 No issue is raised in relation to the sustainability of the proposed development as a whole. Phase 1 alone would not, however, amount to a sustainable form of development. The whole development could only be secured by a Grampian condition relating to IWIMP, but such a condition cannot be imposed, because it would fail the reasonable prospects test.
6.74 The appeal application is in outline, with all matters reserved for subsequent approval. Detailed design issues would therefore be addressed through reserved matters applications. In general, the Council are supportive of the design principles adopted in the Design and Access Statement and the masterplans produced in connection with the appeal application.
6.75 In considering reserved matters applications, the Council would ensure that the needs of all were met, including people with disabilities, in accordance with advice in paragraphs 36 and 39 of PPS1.
6.76 It is not the Council’s case that the proposed development is premature in the context of emerging Development Plan documents.
59 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Consistency with PPS3
6.77 In considering reserved matters applications, the Council would ensure that the housing to be developed was well designed and built to a high standard. Conditions should be imposed on any planning permission to secure the preparation of Design Codes for each phase of the development.
6.78 The proposed housing density is consistent with the Government’s guidance in PPS3 and with the CSS.
6.79 The North Northamptonshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment advises that on sites of more than 50 dwellings a relatively even mix of two, three and four bedroom homes should be provided. Although the appeal application is in outline, the submitted documentation indicates the possibility of achieving a broad mix of detached, semi detached and terraced dwellings, town houses, mews, apartments and bungalows. The mix would be generally consistent with the advice in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment.
6.80 CSS Policy 15 requires a minimum provision of 30% affordable housing in Wellingborough. The Council’s planning guidance for the Wellingborough North SUE asks for 20% affordable housing, with 15% of open market housing to be low cost and 5% of open market housing to be wheelchair accessible. Those requirements should be incorporated in the Section 106 obligation.
6.81 Although the CSS identifies a figure of 2,300 dwellings to be provided to the north west of Wellingborough in the period up to 2021, the document also recognises that there is potential for future growth beyond 2021. The appeal proposal makes provision for 3,000 dwellings, but that number could be accommodated within the site at an appropriate density, and the Council therefore raise no issue in respect of the number of dwellings proposed.
6.82 Provided the necessary infrastructure were in place or committed (particularly the IWIMP), the Council accept that the appeal site would be a suitable location for a major SUE. However, bringing forward the appeal site, which is entirely greenfield, now would not represent an efficient use of land, when WEAST (which includes brownfield land) remains to be developed.
6.83 Indeed, the appeal proposals would deliver nothing by way of housing or affordable housing within the time periods contemplated by PPS3, and would inhibit WEAST from making its contribution. Overall, therefore, the Council consider that the appeal proposals are not consistent with PPS3.
60 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Consistency with PPG13
6.84 The Council raise no issue in relation to local parking standards and related matters dealt with in paragraphs 52 to 56 of PPG13. Subject to the delivery of IWIMP, no point is taken by the Council in relation to consistency with PPG13. The County Council have, however, confirmed that IWIMP is required to be in place in order to provide satisfactory access to Phases 2 and 3 of the proposed development. In the absence of a clear commitment to delivery of IWIMP, the application should be refused.
Conditions
6.85 For the reasons set out above, the Council do not consider that a Grampian condition could be imposed in relation to the IWIMP which would meet the test that there is a reasonable prospect that the road would be delivered during the lifetime of the permission concerned. The lifetime of any permission should not be more than five years, given that the Appellants advance a case which seeks to take advantage of a policy framework which requires an urgent and immediate delivery of housing.
6.86 If, contrary to the Council’s submissions on the reasonable prospects test, it is considered that a conditional planning permission can be granted, an appropriate condition to impose would be:
No development shall be commenced unless the Isham- Wellingborough Improvement Road (“IWImp”) shall have received all necessary statutory consents and full funding shall have been committed sufficient to construct the IWImp and bring it into use.
6.87 Subject to that point, the Council would raise no other objection to the conditions proposed by the Appellants and discussed at the inquiry.
Obligation
6.88 Apart from the questions raised about the reality of the benefits offered in the light of the viability of the appeal development, the Council raise no objection to the form of the obligation proposed by the Appellants or to the nature of the benefits promised. The Council consider that those benefits would be reasonable and necessary to make the appeal development acceptable in planning terms, and that they would meet the other tests contained in paragraph B5 of Circular 05/2005.
61 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
7. THE CASE FOR THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY
The material points are:
7.1 A statement of evidence was provided for the inquiry on behalf of the HA (Document HA/1/1), but it was not read at the inquiry, and the HA witness was not tendered for cross examination. This was because the HA had decided by the time the inquiry opened that they had no objection in principle to the appeal development, subject to the inclusion in a Section 106 obligation of provision for a maximum index linked and capped contribution of £2.5m to cover the costs of alterations to the strategic road network, the need for which would arise from the appeal development, and to the inclusion of appropriate Travel Plan measures.
7.2 The detailed and agreed justification for those provisions is set out in the SCG between the HA and the Appellants (Document APP/0/5).
7.3 The Section 106 obligation submitted by the Appellants (Document APP/0/16) includes the requested provisions.
7.4 In the event, therefore, the HA raise no objection to the appeal proposals.
8. THE CASE FOR THE COUNTY COUNCIL
The material points are:
8.1 A statement of evidence was provided for the inquiry on behalf of the County Council in relation to their role as Local Highways Authority (Document CC/1/1). This was later updated in Document CC/1/2. Neither statement was read at the inquiry, however, and the County Council witness was not tendered for cross examination. This was because the County Council had decided by the time the inquiry opened that they had no objection in principle to the appeal development, subject to certain conditions and obligations.
8.2 The conditions concerned include a Grampian condition preventing the occupation of dwellings on Phases 2 and 3 of the development before the IWIMP is completed, in order to ensure that safety and the free flow of traffic on the trunk road network would not be prejudiced by the occupation of dwellings on the later phases of the development, together with other conditions put forward in the interests of highway safety and the improvement of accessibility. The detailed conditions proposed and their justification are set out in the SCG between the County Council and the Appellants (Document APP/0/6).
8.3 The highway provisions which the County Council would wish to see included in a Section 106 obligation are also set out in Document APP/0/6. They include:
a) A financial contribution towards highway infrastructure improvements identified through the Wellingborough Town Strategy, including a contribution to the cost of the IWIMP, the
62 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
dualling of Park Farm Way and the dualling of Niort Way between the IWIMP and Gleneagles Drive.
b) The safeguarding of the land within the control of the Appellants required for the provision of the IWIMP scheme.
c) Commitment to a Route Management Strategy to militate against the diversion on to less suitable routes of trips between the proposed development and Wellingborough Town Centre.
d) A Travel Plan with modal shift targets.
e) A Public Transport Service Level Agreement for the provision of public transport services to the site.
8.4 The County Council also produced a written position statement (Document CC/0/2, later updated by Document CC/0/3) on education contributions in their role as Local Education Authority. Subject to a slight amendment to the timing of the first contribution to the cost of each primary school and to a revision to the arrangements for the timing of any secondary education payment (both of which changes have clearly been agreed by the County Council, since they have executed the Agreement as a party), the Section 106 obligation submitted by the Appellants (Document APP/0/16) includes the requested provisions.
8.5 The highway conditions requested by the County Council are also included in the final form of the conditions proposed at the inquiry (Document APP/0/13).
8.6 In the event, therefore, the County Council raise no objection to the appeal proposals.
8.7 The SCG signed by the County Council also records their view that the proposed development phasing provides the necessary highway infrastructure as part of Phase 1 to allow access for up to 1,500 dwellings prior to the implementation of IWIMP. The draft programme for IWIMP is set out at paragraph 13.14 of the SCG. It indicates an anticipated start on site for the construction of IWIMP in 2014, although it is suggested that without the need for a public inquiry, that programme could be reduced by about two years. The County Council state in the SCG that it is their view that there is a reasonable prospect that funding will be secured and that IWIMP will be delivered within the lifetime of any outline planning permission that may be granted for the appeal proposal, which the County Council assume could be to 2021 or 2024. In their view, therefore, it would be reasonable and appropriate to impose a Grampian condition on any outline planning permission allowing up to 1,500 dwellings on Phase 1 of the development to be occupied before the Isham Bypass and the IWIMP have been completed. The County Council record the fact that this advice was given to the
63 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Council in writing before the original Upper Redhill planning application was determined on 4 February 2009. The advice was also given on behalf of the County Council orally at the Council meeting at which the decision on that application was taken.
9. THE CASES OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES
The material points are:
9.1 Four Members of the Council appeared at the inquiry to make individual objections to the appeal application.
9.2 Councillor Graham Lawman is one of the three Councillors who represent the Ward which includes Redhill Grange. He is a member of the Development Committee of the Council. He voted for the refusal of the original application at the Council Meeting on 4 February 2009, and he opposes the appeal application.
9.3 Councillor Lawman accepts that the Development Plan plays an important part in determining planning applications, but the overall decision is based on all relevant factors. In this case, despite the adoption of the CSS in June 2008, he was disappointed with the arrangements for the preparation of and the consultation on the CSS. Members had limited time to consider the urban extension plans, and the consultation was rushed and inadequate. He considers that the CSS was driven by the SUE plans, which was not what Members would have wished. He accepts that the CSS, and the arrangements for consultation, were independently examined and found to be acceptable by the Inspector. Residents have, however, told him that they were not consulted.
9.4 In relation to the SUE to the north west of Wellingborough, Members wished to see 2,300 houses of high quality at low density and with separation from Redhill Grange and the Finedon Industrial Estate. The proposed increase to a total of 3,000 houses prejudices these aims. With 5,000 houses planned at WEAST and other residential developments in progress in the area, it is doubtful whether it will be viable to construct a further 3,000 houses during the same time period. Councillor Lawman accepts that more than the WEAST development is needed, but the issue is the timing of that development. Too much development at the same time would overstretch the ability of the area to cope in terms of infrastructure (including facilities for sewage, drainage, electricity supply and broadband access) and roads. There is no certainty of funding for the Isham Bypass, let alone IWIMP.
9.5 A previous Development Plan process decided that development at WEAST should take place before development to the north west of Wellingborough, and nothing has changed to upset that preferred order. In fact, the acquisition by the Appellants of land within the Stanton Cross area of WEAST has effectively slowed down that planned development.
64 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
9.6 The avoidance of coalescence between settlements is an important issue, though Councillor Lawman accepted in cross examination that it was right for the Council not to pursue coalescence as a reason for refusal in relation to the appeal application. Councillor Lawman considers that Redhill Grange is an independent settlement. He accepts that he took a different view at the meeting of the Development Committee on 7 January 2009, when the guidance for the north west Wellingborough SUE was approved. He regrets that decision, and the conclusion taken at the same meeting that ending built development at the 90 metres contour would achieve the avoidance of coalescence. The scheme now proposed uses open space on the edges of the development to avoid coalescence, but Councillor Lawman considers that open space for the development should be within the development.
9.7 The development proposed would not meet the requirements for modal shift. The downgrading of the spur road to the IWIMP to the status of a local street would have an adverse effect on Hardwick Road, where traffic would increase. Councillor Lawman accepts that the Local Highways Authority are satisfied with the highways arrangements.
9.8 The phasing of the development is also unacceptable. The provision of jobs should come first. People move to where their jobs are located, but employment development is proposed only in Phase 2.
9.9 The proposals include too great a provision for retail development, which would have an adverse effect on the viability of shops in the centre of Wellingborough and those on the Farm Estate. Such retail provision as has been included is in the wrong place, because it is too close to the Farm Estate shops.
9.10 Despite the inclusion of houses between Redhill Grange and the Finedon Road Industrial Estate in the Council’s guidance approved in January 2009, Councillor Lawman does not consider this to be a good idea. Houses or a school next to an industrial estate is not a satisfactory proposal, and this contributed to his view that the original application should be refused, even though this point was not included in the Council’s reasons for refusal.
9.11 A Section 106 Agreement should have been concluded at an earlier stage. The document before the inquiry is only a draft, and it is subject to a number of defects. Substantial development would be allowed to take place before any contribution had to be made by the developer. The Appellants could in effect avoid many obligations by building only 1,499 dwellings. Affordable housing needs to be provided on the site, and it is inappropriate for the level of provision on this site to be offset by affordable units provided on other sites. The proposal for a public transport contribution is limited to a period of five years, but that is potentially substantially less than the full period of construction of the whole development.
9.12 For the Appellants to appeal against non determination of their planning application is ridiculous, when the information they originally supplied
65 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
with the application was inadequate and has needed to be subject to amendment and addition. Councillor Lawman supports the opposition of his constituents to the appeal application. The views set out above are those which he had in mind when voting on the duplicate application at the meeting of the Council on 4 February 2009.
9.13 Councillor Lora Lawman is the Chair of the Council’s Development Committee. She believes that the development of houses to the north west of Wellingborough needs to be coordinated with the provision of jobs and infrastructure in the area. The appeal proposal would allow 1,500 houses to be built with no infrastructure.
9.14 The development needs to be coordinated with the opening of the Isham Bypass and IWIMP. The cost of the Bypass has risen substantially, and the Government are only prepared to pay 75% of the increased cost. The County Council need to find £4.2m from other sources. They need to obtain this from the Regional Assembly, but there is great pressure on the limited funds available. IWIMP is still subject to detailed design, and has funding only to take it through to the stage of preparing a planning application.
9.15 There is also pressure on the capacity within the area to deal with sewage and drainage. A major development is planned at WEAST. It would be irresponsible to add further development at the same time. Councillor Lawman accepts that there was no indication from officers at the Council meeting on 4 February 2009 that there was inadequate infrastructure to deal with sewage and drainage at Upper Redhill, and that no new evidence has been produced on these issues since that time. The inadequacy of sewage and drainage infrastructure does not form part of the Council’s putative reasons for refusal of the appeal application.
9.16 The area of the appeal site lacks medical provision, and the proposed arrangements for education would only make primary education provision at a later stage of the development. Employment and community provision would also only arrive at a later stage. All of these facilities should be provided at the same time as houses. There could be 1,500 houses at Upper Redhill with no adequate infrastructure to support them. That would provide an unacceptable quality of life for residents.
9.17 The Council are also still waiting for houses to be provided at WEAST. The CSS gives priority to WEAST. That development needs to be successfully established before development to the north west of Wellingborough goes ahead. It would be irresponsible for a further major development to go ahead before WEAST is established. The housing figures for the area were agreed before the impact of the economic crisis was realised. They would be quite different now, and this should be taken into account.
9.18 The financial viability of the appeal development is suspect. Members were originally told that the development would not be viable if
66 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
affordable housing were to be included, but the CSS demands a percentage of affordable housing. Councillor Lawman does not believe that the Appellants would meet their Section 106 obligations on the provision of affordable housing and secondary education.
9.19 The CSS Inspector indicated that the individual Local Planning Authorities within North Northamptonshire should be able to set their own strategic gaps between settlements. Councillor Lawman considers that there should be a gap of 1 kilometre between settlements. She also considers that Redhill Grange should be allowed to remain as a separate village settlement, although she accepts that the Council’s planning guidance on a SUE to the north west of Wellingborough does not proceed on that basis.
9.20 The Council need to protect the green environment of the area. Development on the appeal site would affect the habitats of badgers and bats. It would also put at risk archaeological remains. In addition, there is a wartime MOD fuel pipeline to the north of Great Harrowden, which may run through the appeal site. Councillor Lawman has great concern about this.
9.21 The appeal development would be contrary to Policies 7, 8 (delivering economic prosperity) and 9 of the CSS and to saved Policy G25 of the LP (which requires necessary infrastructure to exist or to be provided by the developer if planning permission is to be granted). Councillor Lawman therefore voted for the refusal of the original application, despite the fact that officers recommended it for approval, and she opposes the appeal application on the same basis.
9.22 Councillor Jim Bass has been a Member of the Council since November 2007. From the outset, officers emphasised to him that the Council’s priority was to secure the delivery of WEAST. After that had been successfully established, a further SUE to the north west of Wellingborough could be brought forward. That was enshrined in the adopted CSS. Councillor Bass was therefore surprised that officers recommended the original application on the appeal site for approval.
9.23 There is no certainty that funds will be available to deliver IWIMP. Equally, Councillor Bass is not convinced that funds would be available to deliver the necessary works promised by the developers in this case. There is no concluded Section 106 Agreement, and research undertaken by Councillor Bass into the financial stability of the five partners in Northants LLP leads him to the conclusion that only one of the companies concerned has recently made a profit. Northants LLP itself made a net loss in the year to 30 June 2008 of £2,384,941. Councillor Bass accepts that the companies listed as partners in Northants LLP are associates of other companies, who may well have access to additional financial resources.
9.24 Councillor Geoffrey Timms is a Member of the Council for North Ward, which includes part of the appeal site. He is not against development which is on a scale required by the people of the area and
67 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
intended for the people of the area; but he is against massive development forced on a community by the national Government. In the 1960s, Wellingborough was host to a large development to cater for overspill from London. The houses built were of poor quality, and required substantial repair within fifteen years. The social problems arising from the development persist in the area to the present day.
9.25 WEAST has been planned in great detail, and has been subject to extensive consultation. It should be delivered before there is any further substantial urban expansion.
9.26 The Isham Bypass was first mooted in the mid 1960s. It was supposed to be four to six years in the planning. It has still not commenced on site, despite planning permission being granted in 1985. The cost of the Isham Bypass has now increased substantially, and it may no longer have secure funding.
9.27 In just the same way, IWIMP might not be delivered for many years, if at all.
9.28 The recession means that houses are not selling, and there is therefore no sound argument for building any more. Any houses built should have jobs provided at the same time for the people who will live in them. If additional high quality jobs are not provided in the area, there would be no need for additional houses.
9.29 The Great Harrowden Parish Meeting held a special meeting to discuss the original Upper Redhill application. The grounds on which they objected to it apply equally to the appeal application, to which an objection has also been authorised.
9.30 Great Harrowden is an ancient village, dating back to the thirteenth century. It contains just over thirty houses.
9.31 As the Council have argued, the appeal application is contrary to CSS Policy 9, which provides that a further SUE should be brought forward to the north west of Wellingborough only when WEAST has been successfully established. The proposal is also contrary to CSS Policy 1, because it does nothing to assist the regeneration of the town centre of Wellingborough, and to CSS objective 3, because it would not maintain the distinctive and separate settlement of Great Harrowden. The appeal site is within around 150 metres of Great Harrowden in places, and while the immediate boundary area of the appeal site is intended for open space use, the use of that open space would remove the separation between the settlements.
9.32 The proposal is also contrary to saved Policies G3, G4 and G6 of the LP (Document CD1.6). Policy G3 identifies areas of restraint, in which development will only be permitted if it does not contribute to the coalescence of settlements and is not detrimental to the open, rural character of the countryside. Policy G4 identifies Great Harrowden as a restricted infill village. Policy G6 provides that development in open
68 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
countryside will not be permitted unless it cannot be accommodated other than in the open countryside and is small in scale and impact.
9.33 The CSS explains the need for more housing in the area by quoting figures which suggest that jobs will increase by 3% annually between 2004 and 2021. That assumption was optimistic in June 2008, given that growth had only been 1.5% annually between 1991 and 2004, but it looks completely out of the question in 2009. Despite that, the appeal proposal is for 3,000 houses, rather than the total identified in the CSS for development in this area of 2,300. The plan to build Phase 1, which is purely residential, is thus completely unsustainable. Residents would need to find work in other areas. Recently, more than 1,800 people applied for jobs in a new discount store opening in Wellingborough which was seeking to recruit 25 people.
9.34 The HA and the County Council apparently accept that 1,500 houses could be built on the appeal site without the provision of either the IWIMP or the Isham Bypass. That would be completely unacceptable to local people. Great Harrowden suffers from being split into two parts by the A509. The crossroads in the middle of the village is recognised in the area as a very difficult junction. The appeal development would clearly add a significant load to the existing road infrastructure, which would not be addressed immediately at the start of the development. At least in the early stages, therefore, the development would have a significantly adverse impact on traffic conditions in the area and their effect on residents of Great Harrowden.
9.35 For those reasons, the Parish Meeting considers that the appeal should be rejected.
9.36 The Wellingborough East Landowner Group support the proposal for a further SUE to the north west of Wellingborough, but consider that the appeal application is premature. They believe that the boundaries of a further SUE should be identified through the Development Plan process rather than through a planning application. They also consider that the increase in the number of dwellings proposed in the appeal application to 3,000 (as compared to the 2,300 referred to in the CSS) should be dealt with through the Development Plan process.
9.37 Strategic and local infrastructure constraints would need to be resolved in order to satisfy paragraph (a) of CSS Policy 7. Such constraints would be addressed in a Section 106 obligation, but no concluded obligation had been executed while the inquiry was sitting, and the viability of such an obligation had therefore not been tested. Moreover, the CSS provides that WEAST should be well established before a further SUE is commenced. In fact, development of Stanton Cross has not yet commenced. Stanton Cross should be the first priority because it will bring the greatest benefits to Wellingborough, including the enhancement of the railway station, creation of the north/south link to relieve congestion on the eastern side of the town, and provision of a site for a new secondary school.
69 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
9.38 CSS Policy 7 also provides that the further SUE can only come forward early if appropriate efforts have been made to identify and address obstacles and constraints to housing delivery. The Group’s selected developer, Bovis Homes, are in detailed discussions with all relevant parties to remove obstacles to housing delivery at Stanton Cross. This includes discussions with the Homes and Community Agency regarding the large scale early provision of affordable units, which could assist greatly in bringing forward a start on Stanton Cross. Until Stanton Cross is well established, in accordance with the provisions of the CSS, a further SUE should not be permitted.
9.39 Redhill Grange Community Association exists to represent people who live in the 395 dwellings at Redhill Grange, to keep them informed of matters which might affect them, and to try to preserve the environment of the area and improve the quality of life of residents living there. The Association was formed in November 2006. It has a formal constitution (Document RGCA/0), and membership is open to all residents of the area aged 16 or over. It is managed by an Executive Committee, and holds regular full meetings of the Association. The objection of the Association to the appeal development was authorised by its Executive Committee, and confirmed by a well attended full meeting of the Association. The Association’s authority to speak on behalf of all residents at the inquiry was sought by the distribution in April 2009 of a leaflet to all 395 dwellings in Redhill Grange. Residents were asked to inform the Honorary Secretary if they did not wish the Association to speak on their behalf at the inquiry. In response to that leaflet and a later newsletter, only one resident replied that the objection made by the Association did not represent his views.
9.40 The Association accepts that the CSS makes provision for the development of a further SUE to the north west of Wellingborough, once the initial SUE at WEAST has been successfully established. WEAST has not, however, been successfully established.
9.41 The original Upper Redhill planning application was submitted in November 2007, before the CSS was adopted in June 2008. In suggesting that the appeal application conforms to the CSS, therefore, the Appellants are using arguments that had not been assessed as sound when the appeal application was submitted in March 2008. The CSS Inspector did not report on the Examination in Public of the CSS until May 2008. The application was therefore submitted before the Council were able to use the CSS to guide them in the issue of a Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document against which the application could be assessed.
9.42 The appeal application was also submitted before the Council had adopted their guidance document on the development of a SUE to the north of Wellingborough (Document CD2.1). That document was adopted only in January 2009. It was not subject to public scrutiny, as the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document would be. It did not conform to the CSS policy of development of a further SUE to the north west of Wellingborough, because it included development to
70 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
the north east of Wellingborough. It rejected comments from the public which the Council had received in response to the issue of notice of both the original and the appeal applications, and it ignored the adverse reaction of residents of Redhill Grange.
9.43 The consultation drafts of the CSS had consistently shown the preferred direction of growth to the north of Wellingborough to be to the north west of the town. On that basis the Redhill Grange Community Association did not object to the CSS. Had there been reference to development to the north east of Redhill Grange, that would not have been the case.
9.44 Redhill Grange has a village like situation, which is worthy of protection. The appeal proposal would lead to the surrounding of Redhill Grange by development, and would completely remove the feeling of a separate settlement.
9.45 Contrary to the position now taken by the Council, the Association considers that the appeal development would lead to coalescence between Wellingborough and Great Harrowden. But it would also clearly lead to coalescence with the settlement of Redhill Grange. The CSS states that the locations of SUEs have been selected to avoid coalescence between settlements. What constitutes a settlement is not defined in the CSS, but, if Great Harrowden is a settlement, Redhill Grange should equally be accepted as a distinct settlement. Coalescence with Redhill Grange should also therefore be avoided.
9.46 The Association supports the representations of the Council that the appeal development would be in conflict with the CSS given that the original SUE at WEAST has not yet been successfully established.
9.47 The Association also supports the Council’s contention that there is no reasonable prospect of the IWIMP being completed within the lifetime of any planning permission. The County Council’s position statement of 21 May 2009 (Document CC/0/1) suggests that at best there would be a start on site in 2014, but if the construction depends on RFA funding from the Department for Transport, a start on site cannot be assumed until 2019.
9.48 The Appellants argue that, if IWIMP is not delivered in the timescales envisaged, then Phase 1 of their proposed development could stand alone. Local knowledge indicates, however, that this is not the case. At times, Niort Way and Northen Way are subject to very heavy traffic already. To add to this traffic flow the extra vehicles from 1,500 dwellings from Phase 1 together with the traffic from WEAST would saturate the existing road system.
9.49 The Association also objects to the latest version of the IWIMP proposals, which has downgraded the proposed spur road from the IWIMP to the A509 in the area of Redhill Grange to the status of an estate road. The spur road is vital, because it would divide the traffic going east to the Finedon Industrial Estate from that going west to the
71 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Farm Industrial Estate and the M1. This decision has been taken against the advice of the Wider Area Reference Consultation Group set up by the County Council. It negates the point of the County Council’s consultation process. Document RGCA/3, presented to the Wider Area Reference Group showed that Annual Average Daily Traffic Flow figures in 2010, based on low growth, would see 11,700 vehicles per day using the spur road, excluding traffic to be generated by the WEAST SUE.
9.50 The appeal development would not contribute to modal shift, as required by the Council’s planning guidance (Document CD2.1), in that there is no secondary school planned within the appeal development. Thus, the residents of 3,000 dwellings with children of secondary school age would have no option but to take their children to the nearest school, which is likely to be the secondary school planned to be delivered as part of WEAST. Such journeys would be likely to take place by car. Moreover, there is no supermarket included in the appeal proposal. The nearest supermarkets would be some distance away, and residents would again use their cars for supermarket shopping. In addition, the Appellants’ proposals do not include the development of employment uses until Phase 2. Jobs in the area would be needed at a much earlier stage to create a truly sustainable urban extension.
9.51 The wooded area to the west of Redhill Grange, between the former line of the A509 and the present line of that road, is thought to be the ancient trackway which once ran between Great Harrowden and Wellingborough. The Appellants’ latest proposals include the retention of this wooded area, but it would in fact involve the strip of trees being breached in three places to form connections to the existing highway.
9.52 The Appellants say that the proposed neighbourhood centre would be “a lively, active and vibrant place”, which could be construed as indicating that it would be busy and noisy. It would be highly intrusive to residents who live on the western side of Redhill Grange. It would also be very close to existing shops in the Redhill Farm Estate, to the other side of the A509, and could have a detrimental effect on those businesses. It was noted on the accompanied site visit that some of the shops in that local centre are already vacant.
9.53 The neighbourhood centre was originally proposed to be to the north of the appeal development, but the Appellants state that it was moved to its present location in response to representations from residents of Great Harrowden. The view of the much larger number of residents in Redhill Grange, who suggested that the centre should be sited further to the west, nearer to the centre of the development, was ignored.
9.54 Noise from the Finedon Road Industrial Estate is already intrusive on the eastern side of Redhill Grange. To contemplate the building of houses, and particularly a school, adjacent to the Industrial Estate, as proposed by the Appellants, would be placing such development near to the sources of that noise. The Association consider that the proposed site for a primary school close to the boundary with the Industrial Estate represents an entirely inappropriate location for such a development.
72 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
9.55 There are presently only two access points and one exit point from Redhill Grange. This is considered to be a major contributory factor to the very low crime rate in Redhill Grange, the lowest crime rate of any comparable area in Wellingborough. The proposed development would provide three further exit points. This advantage would therefore be lost as a result of the roads planned by the Appellants, which is inconsistent with the policy of Designing Out Crime.
9.56 The Appellants’ proposals include two bus gates, designed to restrict through access to buses only. These devices are expensive to maintain, and are subject to vandalism and abuse. Maintenance call out times in the event of breakdown can be significant. In any event, they allow motor cycles to pass. The installation of a bus gate on Wellingborough Road would deny direct vehicular access from Redhill Grange to Great Harrowden, which would cause considerable inconvenience to those residents of Redhill Grange who wish to use a car to go to the Church, the Golf Club, or simply to visit Great Harrowden.
9.57 In Document RGCA/4, Anglian Water state that, at the current rate of bringing forward new housing, the Broadholme Sewage Treatment Plant has sufficient capacity until 2018. Should the rate of bringing forward new housing be increased, however, as it would be if WEAST and Upper Redhill both started to produce additional housing at the same time, that capacity assessment would have to be revised.
9.58 Chapter 17 of the Design and Access Statement (Document AD4.2, page 154) indicates that, to cope with drainage, the use of swales is proposed. These would create linear open spaces flowing down the valley slope, and allow sustainable drainage for the housing areas to the Great Harrowden Brook. The swales would include drainage channels, which could include permanent water areas. Children’s play areas would also be created in those corridors. The Association questions the logic of the use of open water channels running between areas of housing. These would not only present opportunities for dumping, with the consequence of possible flooding, but also represent a danger to children using the play areas.
9.59 The Appellants claim to have consulted widely on the application, but this is disputed. Residents at Gleneagles and at Redhill Farm were not invited to the consultations. The holding of the October and November 2006 consultations was not given full coverage, in that there was no leaflet distribution to local residents. They were advertised only in the public notices section of the local evening paper, which has limited circulation. The October 2007 consultation took place at the request of the Redhill Grange Community Association, but as the earlier application was submitted in November 2007, it can be considered a “consultation” in name only. There was no consultation on the October 2008 changes made to the applications. The Appellants’ Upper Redhill website, which should play a major part in contributing to consultation, has not been updated since January 2008, and still shows the pre October 2008 plan for the development.
73 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
9.60 Although the appeal application has not been the subject of a determination by elected Members of the Local Planning Authority, the identical earlier application was considered by the Council on 4 February 2009. It was rejected by a very substantial majority. If democracy in planning means anything, that decision should be followed in the determination of this appeal.
9.61 If the appeal were to be allowed, the extended timescale for the proposed development would mean that residents of Redhill Grange would be condemned to living in the centre of a building site for the ten years or more which the development would take to complete.
9.62 If, contrary to all that is argued by the Association, planning permission were to be granted for the appeal development, some form of mitigation of the coalescence which would arise should be afforded to residents on all sides of Redhill Grange, the eastern side in particular. There should be a buffer of appropriate width and design. One form of such coalescence mitigation could be the creation of an Arboretum Trail, which would assist in carbon reduction.
9.63 Some individual residents of Redhill Grange also made representations on their own behalf.
9.64 Mr Graham Mower has lived at Redhill Grange for thirty years. He supports the representations of the Redhill Grange Community Association, but he emphasises his concern at the impact the proposed development would have on the woodland between the existing A509 and the original line of the A509. This is shown in photographs GM/3, GM/4 and GM/5.
9.65 From the north of the five arm roundabout at the A509/A510 junction, the first 90 metres of that woodland is a plantation of over two dozen horse chestnut and a few sycamore trees, which were planted in the early 1980s when the junction was formed. A tarmac pathway then crosses this strip of land to provide pedestrian access from Redhill Grange to the bus stop on the A509. At that point, the woodland is approximately 30 metres wide. The woodland continues northwards for a distance of around 270 metres, tapering eventually to a point where the present A509 and the original A509 meet in a slip road for traffic travelling south into Redhill Grange. In that area, there are more than sixty mature trees, most of which are ash, but there are a few oak trees, together with various other species. In addition, there are numerous smaller trees, shrubs, saplings and hedgerow plants, and the area is a haven for birds and small mammals. Alongside the old A509 roadside verge, the ground level descends down a steep ravine, estimated on my site visit to be about 5 metres deep. Many of the mature trees grow at the bottom of this ravine.
9.66 The ravine and this part of the woodland area are many hundreds of years old, as they can be seen on both the 1754 Plan of the Great Harrowden Lordship and the 1887 Ordnance Survey map.
74 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
9.67 The Appellants’ original plan for the area would have removed all the trees and filled in the ravine. Following objections, the plan was revised in October 2008, and now includes to some extent the retention of the woodland. However, the plan still entails extending Redhill Way westwards through the woodland to link up with the Appellants’ proposed Redhill Street. This would have the effect of cutting the woodland in half, and it would entail filling in a section of the ravine and clearing a roadway some 20 metres wide. A group of mature ash trees would be destroyed in the process. This would frustrate the aspiration of a number of residents of Redhill Grange to turn the area into a small park, with a woodland walk extending from the existing footpath to the bus stop, through the woods northwards to the junction of Footpath TH5.
9.68 In fact, there is no need for Redhill Way to be extended westwards. Traffic between Redhill Grange and Phase 2 of the proposed development could be adequately provided for by the proposed connecting road further to the north, where there is an absence of trees, and the existing former A509 route south to the five arm roundabout. If a direct route for pedestrians and cyclists from Redhill Grange to the proposed neighbourhood centre is considered necessary, a simple foot and cycle path bridge over the woodland ravine (in place of a roadway) would be preferable and more environmentally friendly. It would also be desirable from a traffic safety point of view, as it would not lead to Redhill Way becoming a rat run, which would be a likely result of the present proposals.
9.69 The second area of the woodland that remains under threat is the area immediately to the north of the A509/A510 traffic roundabout. This remains shown on the latest plans for the proposed development as part of the site for the neighbourhood centre. The plan at Document AD3.7 shows it as having a built form up to 15 metres high. Obviously, this would entail the present woodland, with twenty five year old horse chestnut trees (shown on Document GM/5) being cleared for building purposes. Building on this area would be contrary to the undertaking given in paragraph 12.2 of Document AD5.4 (the Addendum to the ES following the amendments to the master plan of October 2008) that the trees and woodland to the west of the existing Redhill Grange development would be retained.
9.70 Mrs Hayley Mitchell also supports the case put by the Redhill Grange Community Association in relation to the impact which the development would have on Redhill Grange.
9.71 In addition, she considers that there has been no adequate survey of the wildlife to be found on the appeal site. Such surveys should be carried out before there is any question of planning permission being granted. In her view, protected species and important habitats might be adversely affected if the proposal were to be allowed to proceed.
9.72 Mrs Mitchell is also concerned at the proposal to locate a primary school close to the Finedon Road Industrial Estate. This would prevent the
75 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
future expansion of the Industrial Estate, and limit the uses to which existing units could be put. A school would be affected by the noise, smells and pollution from the Industrial Estate, and children would hear bad language from workers on the Industrial Estate, which no mound or fence would block off from the school area.
9.73 Additional traffic would be attracted to Redhill Grange, which would affect the present situation in which children are able to play safely in the streets of the area.
9.74 Mr Trevor Tippet also comments particularly on the issue of the proximity of development in the proposed Phase 3 of the appeal scheme to the Finedon Road Industrial Estate. He has lived in Redhill Grange for almost seventeen years - in Oak View, at the eastern edge of Redhill Grange. During the summer months, with the wind in a westerly direction, tannoy announcements made from several of the units on the Industrial Estate can be clearly heard at his property, even though there is a separation of around 200 metres from the Industrial Estate and a 3 metres thick hedgerow about 20 metres away from the rear facing boundary of his house. Other noises from the industrial units can also be heard. Whilst such noise is not continuous, it can be very intrusive.
9.75 Houses built to the east of Redhill Grange would be much closer to the Industrial Estate, with consequently greater exposure to noise from that source. A recent arson attack at a scrap yard within the Industrial Estate also raises questions regarding the safety of building a school and houses so close to industrial premises. There must be gas cylinders and potentially hazardous materials stored at many premises on the Industrial Estate.
9.76 Mr Ian Brown has lived at Redhill Grange for fifteen years, and supports the case of the Redhill Grange Community Association.
9.77 He underlines the fact that Redhill Grange is a separate community, which exhibits no desire to be more integrated with the town of Wellingborough or to be subsumed within a larger development.
9.78 Mr Brown appreciates the need for Wellingborough to grow and to provide more housing. He therefore does not object to Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed development, provided the road infrastructure, particularly the IWIMP, is developed at the same time. In his view, however, Phase 3 of the proposed development would lead to more access roads to and from Redhill Grange, and more traffic through the estate. The present limited number of accesses assists the maintenance of a low crime rate on Redhill Grange.
9.79 Mr Brown refers to paragraph 1.1 of the report on the earlier application in relation to the appeal site which was considered by the Council at their meeting on 4 February 2009 (Document CD7.6). That states that land to the east of the A509 is included in the appeal site, although that area is not indicated as a site for a future SUE in the CSS. Phase 3 of the appeal development would therefore be contrary to the provisions of
76 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
the CSS, and should not be allowed.
9.80 The residents of Redhill Grange do not need the additional local facilities which would be provided by the proposed developments. They already have adequate local facilities within walking distance at Redhill Farm.
9.81 Mr John Burton has lived at Redhill Grange for almost thirty years. He believes it is important that a major proposal which would change the lives of existing residents dramatically should be the subject of consultation with those residents, and that the proposal should be processed fairly.
9.82 Having been consulted, the existing residents of Redhill Grange have shown that they are substantially opposed to the appeal development. Their views should be taken into account.
9.83 Mr Burton produced the draft Planning Guidance on the Wellingborough North SUE, which had been put to the Development Committee at Wellingborough on 7 January 2009 (within Document JB/2). He points out (in Document JB/1) that the adopted version of that guidance (Document CD2.1) exhibits a number of changes from the draft. He feels that these changes have operated against the interests of the residents of Redhill Grange and in favour of the Appellants. He questions the fairness of this approach.
9.84 Mr Burton also contrasts the proposed provision of a buffer zone between the appeal development and Great Harrowden with the way in which the scheme would surround Redhill Grange. He considers that to be unfair. He makes the point that Redhill Grange (which is substantially larger than Great Harrowden) is within the ecclesiastical Parish of Great Harrowden, and contends that it should receive equal treatment.
9.85 Mr Burton points out that an All Party Parliamentary Select Committee recommended in December 2008 that all building developments should be drastically reduced in the present economic climate, and development taking place should be limited to brownfield sites. There are many brownfield sites awaiting development in Wellingborough, not to mention large numbers of vacant new properties. The appeal site is a greenfield site and should not be developed at this time.
9.86 Mrs Susan Suttle has lived at Redhill Grange for thirty years. She considers that the WEAST development should be carried out before any development to the north west of Wellingborough takes place. The WEAST development will achieve the improvement of access to the London Midland Railway Station, creating greener transport links. It will also deliver the prospective additional secondary school which is needed in the area.
9.87 The town centre of Wellingborough and its road system would not be able to cope with the contemporaneous development of WEAST and Upper Redhill. There is already a problem with commuter parking in
77 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
neighbourhoods around the Railway Station.
9.88 Even an overdeveloped town such as Luton, despite being nearer London, has extended less into its surrounding countryside than Wellingborough. Kettering lies only a few kilometres from the northern boundary of Wellingborough. Taking into account the necessary infrastructure which Upper Redhill would require, together with the possibility of future phases of development beyond 2021, it would eventually be difficult to tell where Wellingborough ends and Kettering begins. This concern gave rise to a petition signed by hundreds of local residents, which was presented to the Secretary of State at the end of 2008 by the local Member of Parliament, Mr Peter Bone. [Inspector’s note – no copy of this petition or of its terms was available at the inquiry.]
9.89 Redhill Grange demonstrates that smaller urban extensions can operate satisfactorily. It has thrived as a community, without any purpose built centre. It has access to the facilities available in Great Harrowden and in the Redhill Farm development. Such access would be reduced by the road alterations and footpath diversions which the appeal development would require.
9.90 The ES underestimates the level of material of archaeological interest likely to be found in the area. The County Council’s Sites and Monuments Map for the area (Document SS/2) shows a considerably greater level of sites of potential interest, much of which remains uninvestigated.
9.91 The Furnace Lane Action Group (“FLAG”) is a formally constituted association, whose members comprise the residents of the twenty three Victorian cottages located on Furnace Lane. This lies about 1.5 kilometres north of the northern boundary of the appeal site. FLAG was formed in 2004, with the objective of protecting the community and the surrounding area. The objection of FLAG to the appeal application has been formally authorised by the Group.
9.92 If the development is allowed to proceed, it would make Great Harrowden and Little Harrowden part of Wellingborough, as the appeal site is the only green space between them. The CSS provides that coalescence between areas should not occur in the development of any SUE. The proposed development is therefore not supported by the Development Plan.
9.93 The area surrounding the River Ise is prone to flooding, and this would be made worse by building on the scale of the appeal proposal. The public who enjoy using the countryside for leisure, such as walking, cycling, horse riding or bird watching would no longer have this amenity. The development would destroy the habitat for wildlife which currently occupies the area. There are foxes, bats, badgers and owls which would lose their homes.
9.94 The current road system, even when the Isham Bypass is constructed, is
78 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
not suitable for the increase in traffic which would arise from the appeal development. The roads are already very heavily used, and additional development would undoubtedly lead to additional accidents.
9.95 The proposal contains no provision for medical facilities. The local hospitals, doctors and dentists are already under strain, and they would not be able to cope with the increased number of local residents.
9.96 Little thought has been given by the developer to the effect the development would have on the immediate community and the surrounding area. FLAG therefore fully supports the decision of the Council to resist the approval of the appeal application.
9.97 It is accepted that a letter dated 9 June 2006 was sent on behalf of FLAG indicating that the Group had no objection to the proposed development. Three years later, there is much more information available about the proposals. This has allowed the Group to give further consideration to the impact which those proposals would have on the area. It is in the light of that further information that the views of the Group have changed. FLAG now objects most strongly to the appeal application.
9.98 Two individual members of FLAG also made personal representations objecting to the appeal application.
9.99 Mr Martin Lawrence-Harris makes the point that local communities have, since 2006, continuously objected to the development proposals for Upper Redhill, but the Appellants continue to attempt to press forward with their proposals despite both local opinion and local planning policy.
9.100 PPS1 states that decisions should be taken in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The CSS states that the preferred area for any further SUE should be to the north west of Wellingborough, but the appeal application describes itself as the “Northern Access to Wellingborough”. The proposal therefore contravenes the adopted spatial policy for the area.
9.101 PPS1 also states that one of the Government’s objectives for the planning system is to ensure that development supports existing communities and contributes to the creation of safe, sustainable, liveable and mixed communities, with good access to jobs and key services for all members of the community. The appeal application, on the contrary, seeks to destroy the established communities of Redhill Grange, Great Harrowden, Little Harrowden and Furnace Lane. All of these communities object strongly to the appeal application.
9.102 The application was submitted for inclusion in the CSS alongside its sister development, the employment proposal at “Pulse Park”. Both proposals were rejected as sustainable SUEs when the CSS was being considered, because they did not pass the soundness test. From that point on, the developers sought to circumvent the CSS by applying for
79 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
planning permission before the final adoption of the CSS. If the appeal proposal had been a viable option, it would have been included in the CSS as a suitable SUE. It was rejected in January 2007, and it is therefore inappropriate to reconsider that position now.
9.103 The World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 stated that “development should meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Because the appeal proposal bears no relevance to the adopted spatial strategy in the Development Plan, it is unsustainable. Development such as that proposed for Upper Redhill could easily be located on previously developed land in the area. The premature development of the appeal site would have a detrimental effect on the development of an already approved SUE site at WEAST. If both developments were brought forward simultaneously, the sustainability of both developments would be in jeopardy because satisfactory infrastructure is not and would not be in place to support the plans.
9.104 The appeal site is in an area poorly supported by existing infrastructure. It would require enormous ancillary services to meet the needs of its proposed location. Road traffic in the area has already increased by 20% over the last five years with the development to the east of Kettering. The A509 is heavily trafficked as a result, and additional access roads from the appeal development would blight road traffic conditions, especially as traffic from the Finedon Road Industrial Estate needs to enter an already congested roundabout. The preferred area of growth identified in the CSS to the north west already has upgraded road facilities to incorporate development of the identified projected area of growth, and consequently affords better transport links. The Appellants’ proposals would make no contribution to the alleviation of existing traffic conditions until a significant proportion of the appeal development had been completed. In fact, if the development were allowed to proceed, the necessary infrastructure should be put in place first, before any house could be occupied.
9.105 Services to the existing communities of the area would be stretched beyond breaking point by the addition of the appeal development together with the other developments in Kettering and Corby which have been accepted in the CSS. The rail network in the area is already at capacity, and rail users often have standing room only. Kettering General Hospital is also already under strain, and the Primary Care Trust for the area has identified that it would need assistance with meeting the additional demand which the appeal development would place on the region’s NHS services. The development would also increase demands on the Police service, particularly because of the increased number of rat runs which would be created through the estate.
9.106 The appeal proposal would do little to meet the requirements of modal shift referred to in PPG13. In fact, its rural location would increase car borne traffic. It would also lead to urban sprawl, which PPS7 indicates should not occur.
80 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
9.107 Ms Shelley Lawrence-Harris considers that, if the appeal application were approved, it would represent the first step in developing the only green area between Wellingborough, The Harrowdens, Finedon and Burton Latimer, leading to the total coalescence of the surrounding settlements, and the creation of a sterile linear conurbation with no distinctive feature. Roads would become grid locked, and night skies no longer black, but polluted by urban development, encroaching upon what was once a rural landscape, alive with a rich habitat and wildlife.
9.108 The coalescence of Wellingborough and the adjoining settlements to the north directly contravenes Policy 10 of the CSS, which states that “new building development in the open countryside outside the Sustainable Urban Extensions will be strictly controlled”. The appeal site was rejected as a SUE during the adoption of the CSS. Only if a shortfall in the required level of housing occurred would other areas be considered for SUEs. There is no shortfall of housing at present, and other more desirable sites exist which already have planning permission, such as WEAST.
9.109 The CSS clearly states that growth should be planned to ensure the continued physical separation of the three growth towns. This appeal application would offend against that principle.
9.110 Regard should be paid to the views of local communities and local elected representatives. PPS1 indicates that plans should be drawn up with community involvement, and present a shared vision and strategy of how the area should develop. The local community do not want this development. Their rejection of it is based on research and a careful consideration of the issues which it raises.
9.111 The appeal proposals seek to develop residential accommodation within the vicinity of Harrowden Hall and its grounds. The Hall is a Grade l listed building, with parts of its grounds registered as a historic park and garden. PPS7 states that the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should be given great weight in planning policies. This applies to Harrowden Hall and its grounds, and to a number of other listed buildings within the vicinity of the appeal site. The development would have an adverse impact on the setting of Harrowden Hall. The destruction of this historic inheritance should not be allowed to take place.
9.112 The effects of the appeal development would also have a detrimental impact on air quality in the area and on the night skies. The advent of over development and light pollution would reduce the current amazing clarity of the night skies in the area. This deserves protection, because it would be lost forever if further development took place in open countryside. Development of a supermarket in the area and the development of the Finedon Road Industrial Estate have already blighted the night skies in the area.
9.113 The appeal development would also threaten the wealth of biodiversity that currently exists in the open countryside. Further work should be
81 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
undertaken to provide a more detailed and informed assessment of the impacts of the scheme in that regard. This particularly applies to the protected species which are known to live in the proposed development area. These include bats, badgers, water voles and reptiles. It is clear that there are active badger setts present in the area, as evidenced by the extent of the road casualties seen during the breeding season. The area also provides a habitat for a number of birds protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, including barn owls and skylarks.
9.114 The open countryside between settlements which currently exists provides natural flood defences against flooding from the River Ise and its associated tributaries. The cumulative effect of developing all the land surrounding the Ise Valley would have disastrous consequences for flooding in the immediate area. As runoff from development increases, tributaries are disturbed and relocated, resulting in an extension to the current flood risk areas. There is already flash flooding in Furnace Lane during times of extreme rainfall. The proposed development would increase the runoff and reduce the available flood plain. The inclusion of sustainable urban drainage systems would not be an effective substitute for designated flood plains and low lying arable land which presently offers flood relief for the surrounding areas. Adjacent fields to the River Ise tributary already flood with ever increasing frequency. An area two fields away from Furnace Lane, within the Pulse Park planning application area, has flooded on five occasions already during 2009. When that area is flooded, the water remains on the land for many days. This is something which has become more prevalent in recent years as further development has taken place. One of the cottages in Furnace Lane has been flooded during the 2008/9 winter.
9.115 Development should not take place in open countryside until all vacant previously developed land has been used.
9.116 The Reverend Melvyn Pereira is the Priest in Charge of the Gleneagles Anglican Church, which is the Anglican Church for north west Wellingborough, serving the Gleneagles Estate and the surrounding area to the south of the appeal site. Some of the congregation also come from Redhill Grange and from further afield. Gleneagles Church started in 1990 as an offshoot of All Hallows Parish Church in the centre of Wellingborough. It is now a community of 75 adults and 50 children. It meets in Redwell School, the local junior school in the housing area to the south of the appeal site, and is nearing the capacity of the facilities available there.
9.117 Gleneagles Church is the local Christian Church serving north Wellingborough. With the proposed appeal development added to the Gleneagles Estate and Redhill Grange, it would be serving a population of over 14,000 people. There is no other Christian Church of any denomination within those three housing areas.
9.118 All activities at the Church are and would be open to all members of the community. The midweek clubs for young people and children and the mothers and toddlers group currently attract a further 20 adults and 60
82 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
children and young people who do not usually attend Sunday worship.
9.119 A report produced in November 2008 by Three Dragons for Cambridgeshire Horizons entitled “Facilities for Faith Communities in New Developments” states that “Faith Communities are a key part of the voluntary and community sector and can be important contributors to community cohesion. This can be through the wide range of services that they offer from their centres or places of worship, not only to their own communities but also to others”.
9.120 It is very important that there is proper planning for the community life and social infrastructure of the proposed new community at Upper Redhill. That is central to the thinking behind the Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan. It is supported by the RSS and by the CSS. Paragraph 4.34 of the CSS states that in SUEs “appropriate community facilities such as places to obtain information on travel choices, to hold meetings or to worship must be provided from an early stage in the development, alongside investment in community development and social infrastructure, to support the establishment of sustainable communities”.
9.121 Appropriate recognition should be given in any Section 106 Agreement to the need for at least one place of Christian worship within the proposed development, as a necessary part of the community infrastructure to be provided. There is a need for an appropriate building in which baptisms, weddings and funerals can take place. This was one of the needs identified in the Upper Redhill Statement of Local Engagement (Document AD4.3, paragraph A4.18). A purpose built church centre available for community use is what is required, although a community building which could be available for religious purposes would be better than no provision at all.
9.122 Gleneagles Church would expect to make a financial contribution to such provision, but consider that there should be express mention of a contribution from the developer in the Section 106 obligation.
10. THE CASES OF THOSE WHO MADE WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
The material points are:
10.1 The Trustees of J Wright deceased are the owners of the Curtis Land, to the north of Niort Way, which is excluded from the application site. As indicated at paragraph 2.6 above, this land is also the subject of an application for outline planning permission for residential development. The Trustees support the appeal application, which they consider to be in line with the requirements of the CSS. In their view, the appeal proposal addresses satisfactorily the requirements of CSS Policy 16, which sets out the points to be addressed in master plans for SUEs. The grant of permission for the appeal development is necessary in order to maintain a continuous supply of housing in the area in accordance with the CSS. The Trustees consider that the land which
83 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
they control could be developed satisfactorily with the appeal site in order to provide a sustainable SUE to the north west of Wellingborough.
10.2 Kettering General Hospital Foundation Trust also support the appeal development. They consider that it is clear that there is a need for more houses in Wellingborough, and that the plans would provide the necessary infrastructure in a sustainable way and be for the community good.
10.3 The Northamptonshire NHS Teaching Primary Care Trust made a written representation indicating that the proposed development would affect the demand for the services which they provide in the area. The health service in Northamptonshire is currently operating at or above capacity, and increased resources would therefore be required to expand capacity to meet the demand which would arise from the development. Adjustments to the Trust’s allocation of funds from the Government to reflect changes in population are made every three years, when GP registered populations are aligned to the projections of the Office for National Statistics. New housing developments have an immediate financial consequence for the Trust, however, and the Trust therefore seek a contribution from the developer to reflect the increased demand for their services as the development proceeds and before the additional population is reflected in national funding.
10.4 The Trust use the NHS Healthy Urban Development Unit (“HUDU”) model as a basis for quantifying contributions. The Trust does not usually request funding to cover costs arising from any social rented housing included in the development, and a reduction of 10% has therefore been allowed against the total quantum of development of 3,000 dwellings to reflect what the Trust understands to be the planned affordable housing element of the appeal proposal. Applying local population data to the HUDU model, the health care contribution sought is £3,289 revenue and £795 capital per unit, a total contribution of £11,026,800.
10.5 Subsequently, the Trust commended the quality of the Health Impact Assessment submitted in the case, while commenting that the offer of 10% affordable housing was considered to be inadequate.
10.6 Sport England raise no objection to the appeal application, but recommend that planning conditions and a Section 106 obligation should be used to secure adequate facilities to ensure that the needs of the existing and new population for sports and active recreation are met. They suggest that the Council’s recently adopted Sports Facilities Strategy (Document CD3.2) and the Council’s SPG on planning contributions (Documents CD2.5 and CD2.2 - see paragraph 4.5 above) are used, together with Sport England’s Sports Facility Calculator, to provide an indication of the appropriate level of provision which would be justified by the development. Sport England consider that this would indicate a contribution of between £2.5m and £2.6m to new or improved
84 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
indoor facilities. In addition, Sport England consider that community use of sports facilities associated with the proposed primary schools should be secured. The level of formal and informal open space proposed would meet the Council’s open space standards.
10.7 Natural England state that there is no statutorily designated nature conservation site which would be affected by the appeal proposals. There is no statutory site within 2 kilometres of it. The site is of relatively low value for nature conservation, being predominantly intensively managed arable fields. Natural England are pleased to note that habitats of the highest ecological value are to be retained and enhanced within the development, and the habitat creation proposed goes beyond mitigating or compensating for what would be lost. That position should be safeguarded through the requirement of an Ecological Management Plan. Natural England are satisfied that any potential effects on protected species could be avoided or adequately mitigated. No objection is therefore raised to the appeal development. Conditions would be necessary requiring a further survey before any tree is removed from the site to ensure that it did not contain any roosting bats and requiring a method statement and timetable of works to mitigate any undue adverse effects on badgers.
10.8 The Wildlife Trust are satisfied that ecological matters have been fully considered, subject to similar conditions.
10.9 As indicated at paragraph 4.28 above, the Environment Agency have lifted their initial objection to the appeal proposal, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
10.10 National Grid confirm that the appeal site is crossed by a medium pressure gas main. There is little spare electricity capacity in Wellingborough, and there may be a need to establish a new primary sub station to serve the development. National Grid did not, however, object to the application. The Government Pipelines and Storage System confirm that they have no apparatus within the vicinity of the appeal site. Defence Estates say that the nearest pipeline is 300 metres from the site.
10.11 Anglian Water confirm that there would be sufficient water resource capacity to supply the development, but there would be insufficient capacity in the supply network to deliver the estimated peak flow. Reinforcement of the supply capacity would therefore be required. The foul sewerage system could not accommodate flows from the development, and it is uncertain when capacity will become available. Treatment would be at Broadholme Sewage Treatment Works, where there is current capacity for all sites approved within the Local Development Framework process. In relation to surface water, Anglian Water consider that a Grampian condition should be imposed.
85 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
10.12 Northamptonshire Police seek provision for a Safer Community Team located within the development and for the consideration of the Secured by Design approach to the detailed planning of the development.
10.13 Kettering Borough Council point out that the application does not robustly justify (as required by PPS3) why offsite provision of affordable housing should be accepted to replace affordable units on the appeal development in the later phases of that development.
10.14 A number of Parish Councils in the area raise issues covered in the representations put before the inquiry by interested parties who appeared at the inquiry. Irchester Parish Council have reservations regarding the infrastructure proposals to serve a development of as many as 3,000 dwellings. The development would place stress on existing facilities such as hospitals. Little Harrowden Parish Council are also concerned about hospital provision. On the other hand, there is a fear that the proposal to create two new primary schools on the appeal site could cause the closure of the existing Little Harrowden Primary School. The Parish Council consider that the appeal development is not required so long as WEAST is progressed. The proposal is at odds with the provisions of the CSS. Finedon Parish Council also object on the basis that the WEAST development should be completed before this development takes place. Both Little Harrowden Parish Council and Bozeat Parish Council would be concerned at the precedent set by allowing the appeal. Both Councils consider that the development would not leave a strategic gap between the appeal development and Great Harrowden. The Parish Councils of Isham and Orlingbury reiterated objections to the earlier application.
10.15 Wilby Parish Council object to the scheme because it would give rise to additional traffic on the A4500 through the village and on the roundabout to the A45, which would make it more difficult for people from Wilby to cross the roundabout.
10.16 East Northamptonshire Council object because they consider that the ES should include further information on the socio- economic effects of the development on their area. East Northamptonshire consider that the proposal is located in the flood plain, and may lead to further flooding. It would also have an adverse effect on the capacity of Broadholme Sewage Treatment Works, have an adverse effect on traffic conditions on the A45, and cause the need for increased provision of Police services.
10.17 In addition to the appearance at the inquiry on behalf of FLAG, individual written representations opposing the appeal were received from many of the residents of Furnace Cottages. With a few exceptions, the points they raise are covered by the report of the objections made at the inquiry. The exceptions are:-
86 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
a) Concern that run off from the development would pollute the river basin and damage the fishing in the River Ise.
b) Concern that the proposed development would frustrate the creation of a River Nene Regional Park, which is being considered for the area.
c) A belief that the traffic impact of the proposal should be considered in combination with that of the Pulse Park proposal.
10.18 Written representations in opposition were also received from residents in Redhill Grange. The points they raise are all covered in the case made to the inquiry by the Redhill Grange Community Association.
10.19 Wellingborough Civic Society object to the appeal development because they consider that the WEAST development should be achieved first. The appeal development would give rise to a need for additional road infrastructure. It would cause the loss of agricultural land. It would intrude into the Green Belt and the strategic gap between Wellingborough and Great Harrowden. There is inadequate provision of health services and of sewage and water capacity to allow the development to proceed, and it would cause noise and light pollution.
10.20 The CPRE Northamptonshire object to the appeal proposal because they consider it to be contrary to the provisions of the CSS. It would provide little infrastructure to support the development, and the existing road system is inadequate to serve the development. The impact of the proposals on the village of Great Harrowden and its listed Hall and registered park would be particularly detrimental. The proposal would remove the agricultural land surrounding the village which has maintained its character and distinctiveness. The whole issue of development to the north of Wellingborough needs to be reconsidered as part of a review of the CSS in the light of current needs and the current economic climate.
87 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
11. CONCLUSIONS
11.1 Bearing in mind the submissions and representations which I have reported, I have reached the following conclusions, references being made in square brackets to earlier paragraphs where appropriate.
Background
11.2 The application which is the subject of this appeal was made in outline, with all matters reserved [1.5]. It was amended by agreement with the Council on 13 October 2008 [1.6], and it is the application as so amended which is considered in this report.
11.3 The Milton Keynes and South Midlands (“MK/SM”) area is one of four major growth areas identified in the Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan of 2003. Within MK/SM, that growth is to be concentrated on five major urban areas, one of which is Wellingborough/Kettering/Corby [1.1].
11.4 The growth planned in these areas covers both housing and employment creation. The level of growth required is not intended simply to respond to trends in local population growth, but to play a part in the achievement of the national priority to provide more houses and jobs for an increasing population [5.1].
11.5 While priority is to be given to the reuse of suitable previously developed land within urban areas, followed by other suitable land in urban areas, local Development Plan policy acknowledges that to achieve the growth required it will be necessary to develop a small number of Sustainable Urban Extensions (“SUEs”) [5.41].
11.6 The appeal development would represent a SUE to the north and north west of Wellingborough, covering 252.5 hectares of land which is presently in agricultural use [2.2].
11.7 The proposed development would include up to 3,000 dwellings, employment uses, a neighbourhood centre, up to 4,000 square metres of retail space, sites for two primary schools, and both formal and informal open space [3.1]. It would be carried out in three phases [3.2].
11.8 While this appeal application was not determined by the Council, a duplicate application was refused by the Council on 4 February 2009 [1.7, 1.8]. The reasons why the Council refused that duplicate application formed the basis of the Council’s opposition to this appeal. At the inquiry, however, the Council did not maintain their ground of opposition to the appeal based on coalescence between the appeal development and the Harrowden Villages, though opposition on that basis was maintained by interested parties. The Council added a ground of challenge to the appeal relating to the viability of the appeal development, and, against
88 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
that background, the credibility of the Section 106 obligation offered [1.9].
Planning policy
11.9 The Development Plan for the area includes the East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (“RSS”), published on 12 March 2009. This has updated Part B (Northamptonshire) of the MK/SM Sub Regional Strategy. The Development Plan also includes the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (“CSS”) adopted in June 2008, the saved policy of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan 2001, saved policies of the Wellingborough Local Plan 1999 with 2004 alteration (“the LP”) and the Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan 2006 [4.1].
11.10 Many national planning policy guidance documents are also relevant to aspects of the appeal development, along with relevant Circulars [4.3].
11.11 In addition, there is a range of local Supplementary Planning Guidance documents (“SPG”) which has a bearing on the appeal proposals. Where this SPG has been formally adopted following public consultation and is not affected by subsequent changes in the Development Plan or in national policy guidance, I attach considerable weight to it [4.4].
11.12 There is both adopted SPG and emerging updated Supplementary Planning Documents (“SPD”) on planning contributions. Normally I should attach relatively little weight to the emerging documents, but in this case the principle of such contributions and the approach taken in the area is well settled by both the existing adopted and the emerging documents, and nothing of substance turns on the differences between the adopted and the emerging documents [4.5].
11.13 The Council also adopted a document entitled Wellingborough North Sustainable Urban Extension Planning Guidance in January 2009. This does not rank as SPD, but the guidance was prepared to assist the Council in assessing whether an application accompanied by a master plan would conform to the Development Plan. The aim was to deliver clarity for both the applicants and the Council, given that the planned Site Specific Development Plan Document for the SUE had not yet been prepared [4.7]. In the absence of the Site Specific Development Plan Document, I have attached a degree of weight to the adopted planning guidance, as representing the Council’s considered view of the applicability of Development Plan policies to the appeal site [4.8].
11.14 As a major, mixed use development proposal, the appeal scheme engages many Development Plan policies. The list of such policies is agreed between the parties, and set out in three Statements of Common Ground (“SCG”) [4.2].
89 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
11.15 Very helpfully, the SCGs identify the planning policy issues which are not in dispute between the parties.
11.16 It is agreed between the parties that the Development Plan supports housing growth, including the provision of housing in SUEs, and that, in Wellingborough, the area of search for appropriate locations for SUEs should comprise the east, north and west of the town [4.11]. Approval already exists for a SUE to the east of Wellingborough known as WEAST [4.9]. This includes a major development site at Stanton Cross, which has the benefit of outline planning permission, but other areas approved for housing and other development are also within the WEAST boundary [4.9, 4.14].
11.17 In relation to the proposed SUE to the north and west of Wellingborough, the Council’s site specific guidance of January 2009 relates to the same area as the appeal site [4.12, 5.123].
11.18 The density and housing mix proposed in the documents supporting the appeal application comply with planning policy and are acceptable to the Council [4.15, 4.16]. The Council also regard the level of affordable housing proposed as acceptable [4.17].
11.19 The appeal proposals in relation to education and health provision, community facilities, public realm, open space and recreation provision, employment provision, landscape, ecology, archaeology, the historic environment, flood risk, highways and transportation, and other environmental issues are also regarded as complying with policy and are acceptable to the Council, subject to appropriate conditions on any planning permission and to appropriate provision in an obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 [4.11 to 4.34].
11.20 I have considered the appeal proposals against the Development Plan policies on which there is agreement between the parties, and I share the view of the Council on all of these matters, with the sole exception of the arrangements for affordable housing. I shall return to that issue below.
The main considerations
11.21 In my view, the main considerations in this case are all covered within the Statement of Matters on which the then Secretary of State asked to be particularly informed in her letter of 27 January 2009. In deference to the way in which the main parties presented their cases, however, I consider first and conclude on the very specific issues which divided the Appellants and the Council. I then go on to consider each of the matters listed in more general terms by the Secretary of State.
11.22 The Council and the Appellants differ on:
90 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
a) Whether there is a reasonable prospect of the Isham to Wellingborough Improvement Road Scheme (“IWIMP”) being delivered within the lifetime of the permission being sought in the appeal.
b) Whether the development of a SUE to the north and west of Wellingborough at this time would be in conflict with the Development Plan.
c) Whether the planning obligation submitted by the Appellants would satisfactorily address the impact of the appeal development and be deliverable given the issue of the viability of the appeal development.
In addition, I address as specific issues:
d) Whether the appeal development would result in an undesirable coalescence with the Harrowden Villages to the north, and
e) The range of other matters raised by interested parties to the extent that they are not covered at a) to d) above.
The delivery of IWIMP within the lifetime of the permission sought
11.23 Of the 3,000 dwellings proposed for the appeal site, some 1,500 would be provided in Phase 1 of the appeal development, with 700 in Phase 2, and the final 800 in Phase 3 [3.2].
11.24 The County Council as Local Highways Authority consider that the proposed development phasing provides the necessary highway infrastructure as part of Phase 1 to allow access for up to 1,500 dwellings prior to the implementation of IWIMP. For Phases 2 and 3 of the development to take place, the improved access which would be provided by IWIMP would be necessary. It is the view of the County Council that there is a reasonable prospect that funding for IWIMP will be secured, and that the road would be built within the lifetime of any planning permission granted for the appeal development, which the County Council assume could be up to 2024. The County Council suggest that a start on construction of IWIMP could be assumed in 2014, or sooner if the scheme could be approved without the need for a public inquiry [8.7].
11.25 The IWIMP scheme is supported by the recently published RSS, the County Council’s Transport Strategy for Growth, the Local Transport Plan and the CSS [5.20 to 5.22]. It is a longstanding County Council project in its own right, quite independent of the appeal application [5.19], and will be pursued by the County Council regardless of the outcome of this appeal [5.22], because it is fundamental to the growth proposals for the wider area [5.21]. Growth Area Funding (“GAF”) has been allocated by the
91 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Government to prepare the planning application for the route [5.24].
11.26 In fact, the appeal proposals would have a positive impact on the future delivery of IWIMP, because they offer the opportunity of the necessary land for the scheme being provided without objection, at nil cost, and with a private sector contribution to the overall cost of the scheme [5.23, 5.24].
11.27 The Appellants ask for planning permission to be granted subject to a condition requiring the construction and opening of IWIMP before any development on Phase 2 or Phase 3 could be occupied [5.25, 6.6].
11.28 Although there is no absolute rule that the existence of difficulties must necessarily lead to a refusal of planning permission for a desirable development, it was the policy of the Secretary of State, set out in paragraph 40 of Circular 11/95, that, for a Grampian condition of the type proposed in this case to be applied, there must be a reasonable prospect of the work required by the condition being delivered within the timescale of any planning permission granted. The Appellants and the Council both agree that that is the test which such a condition must meet in the circumstances of this case [5.25, 6.7].
11.29 Where the parties differ is on the question whether that test is met [5.18, 5.34, 5.35, 6.8].
11.30 In fact, in November 2002, in a letter sent on behalf of the Secretary of State to all Chief Planning Officers, the Head of Development Control Policy in the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, advised authorities that, following the decision of the High Court in Merritt v SSETR and Mendip Council, the test set out in paragraph 40 of Circular 11/95 should be amended. The current policy of the Secretary of State is, as I understand it, that in circumstances such as these a negative condition should be rejected only when there is no prospect at all of the action in question being performed within the time limit imposed by any permission.
11.31 The Council say that the life of any planning permission granted in this case should be limited to five years, because the justification for the development is the need for an immediate and urgent delivery of housing [6.8, 6.67]. In effect, the Appellants seek a fifteen year time frame, having regard to the scale and complexity of the overall scheme and the current economic situation [5.144].
11.32 While in general the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 reduced the normal period of time allowed to take action on a planning permission, in my view there remains a case for allowing a longer period for large and complex schemes such as that involved in this case. In particular, in current market conditions, advice has
92 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
recently been given on behalf of the Government to Chief Planning Officers that there is a case for considering granting permissions with a longer duration [5.144]. I consider that case to be made in relation to the appeal application given the scale and complexity of the overall development scheme, which would in any event allow for the delivery of a substantial proportion of the dwellings concerned during the first five year period [5.34].
11.33 The Council next object, however, on the basis that the chances of IWIMP being built in the immediate future are so slim that, with a Grampian condition in effect allowing the Phase 1 development to take place in advance of the construction of IWIMP, there is a real prospect that only Phase 1 of the overall scheme would ever be built [6.22 to 6.27]. There is at present no planning permission for IWIMP; it is dependent on the confirmation of Road Orders which have not even been drafted as yet; the business case for the road has not been made; and there is no public funding identified to make up the £25m of the £33m current total cost which would remain to be found after the value of the private sector contribution to be made by the Appellants had been taken into account [6.9, 6.11 to 6.20]. No funding can be expected from Round 2 of the Community Infrastructure Fund (“CIF”) [6.13]; there is no indication that there would be funding for construction costs from GAF [6.14]; and no funding is likely from Round 2 of the Regional Funding Allocation (“RFA”) [6.15, 6.16].
11.34 To build Phase 1 of the appeal development alone, without the certainty that Phases 2 and 3 would follow on, would, in the opinion of the Council, be to produce only part of the overall scheme. That part has not been the subject of separate environmental assessment [6.22]; the form of elements of the Phase 1 development would be inappropriate if that Phase were simply to stand alone [6.23]; and many of the benefits associated with the overall scheme would be provided only in later phases [6.24]. The Council therefore contend that Phase 1 alone would not produce a sustainable urban extension [6.26, 6.27].
11.35 The Appellants respond that the IWIMP scheme is supported by policy at all levels [5.20]. It is central to the County Council’s transport plans [5.21]. GAF funding would hardly have been provided to work up a planning application if there was no prospect of funding for delivery [5.24]. The IWIMP scheme fits precisely the parameters for which CIF is designed [5.27], and there would be a better chance of RFA funding in future rounds when the business case has been fully prepared [5.26]. It is not necessary for the IWIMP scheme to have detailed planning permission and fully committed funding at this stage; it is simply necessary for there to be a reasonable prospect of its delivery within the lifetime of the planning permission [5.25]. The County Council consider that it will be achieved [5.10, 5.29].
93 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
11.36 The Appellants further argue that in point of fact the Phase 1 proposals would be capable of standing alone and providing a sustainable development. At the same time, such development would improve the sustainability of the existing Redhill Grange Estate. That is not what the Appellants aim to achieve, however [5.28]. If the Council have real concerns on the environmental impact of Phase 1 alone, they could require an environmental assessment of that element of the overall scheme when reserved matters applications for Phase 1 were submitted [5.28].
11.37 I note that the CSS, the North Northamptonshire Development Corporation (“NNDC”) Programme of Development and the Council’s own submitted Annual Monitoring Report (“AMR”) all proceed on the basis that IWIMP will be delivered, since they assume that more than 1,500 dwellings will be provided at Wellingborough North [5.33]. I also note that the Advisory Team for Large Applications (“ATLAS”), who were formally engaged by the Council to assist in connection with the consideration of the appeal application, express the opinion that, in all the circumstances of this case, there is a reasonable prospect that IWIMP will come forward and secure the necessary consents and funding within the short to medium term [5.30, 5.31].
11.38 ATLAS did not give evidence at the inquiry, and their views were therefore not subject to challenge by way of cross examination. I attach less weight to them in that situation than would otherwise be the case [5.32]. In effect, however, they serve only to support my own firm and clear conclusion, arrived at independently on the basis of the evidence I heard, that there is (in the terms in which the parties argued the case) a reasonable prospect of IWIMP being delivered within what I regard as a reasonable lifetime for any planning permission granted for the appeal development. Certainly it is not my view that there would be no prospect at all of IWIMP being delivered within the time limit imposed by any permission.
11.39 I conclude that there is a reasonable prospect of IWIMP being delivered within the lifetime of the permission being sought in the appeal.
Whether the development of a SUE to the north and west of Wellingborough at this time would conflict with the Development Plan
11.40 When Redhill Grange was developed in the 1970s and 1980s, there was an expectation that further expansion of Wellingborough would take place to the north of the town. The LP adopted in 1999, however, preferred expansion to the east, because that would offer better linkages with the existing urban area and a closer link with the major employment areas of the town. There would therefore be sustainability benefits [2.5, 6.28, 6.29].
94 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
11.41 The CSS carries forward the commitment to WEAST as the original SUE for Wellingborough, but in order to meet housing requirements over the longer plan period, it introduced the possibility of further SUEs, including one to the north west of Wellingborough, which could be delivered once the initial Wellingborough SUE was established [6.30].
11.42 WEAST includes within it a number of separate development sites. One of them, the Eastfield Urban Quarter, is being developed by an associated company of the Appellants, and outline approval has been obtained for the development of 540 dwellings there [5.3, 5.46]. But the major development site within WEAST is Stanton Cross. That site also has outline planning permission, but no development is currently taking place on it, despite the best efforts of all concerned to achieve progress [5.45, 5.49, 5.50, 6.33]. There are problems in securing two of the accesses to the site [6.35 to 6.37]. The Council indicated their preparedness to take action by using compulsory purchase powers to deal with one of these situations in June 2007, but so far no action appears to have been taken to progress that resolution [5.49, 6.36].
11.43 Progress with the Stanton Cross development is also hampered in the current economic climate by questions regarding the viability of the scheme in the light of the Section 106 Agreement relating to it [5.47, 5.55, 5.56]. Although that Agreement was negotiated following careful consideration of viability issues, the Council accept that, because of falling land values, the development at Stanton Cross with the Section 106 benefits offered is not viable in present circumstances [6.34, 6.43].
11.44 If Wellingborough is to meet its housing targets, however, and to play its part in responding to the Government’s growth agenda, obstacles to progress need to be resolved urgently.
11.45 Between Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby an additional 34,100 dwellings need to be provided by 2021, and it is important that the three towns grow in a complementary way. Failure to deliver the required housing in Wellingborough would be a significant matter [1.2, 4.11, 5.36].
11.46 In the statutory AMR which they submitted to the Government in December 2008, the Council say that they have the required five year supply of housing land for the period to 2014. In fact, they claim a land supply sufficient for 3,985 dwellings against a requirement for 3,918 dwellings in that period. That conclusion is reached, however, only on the basis that, within that period, some 1,200 dwellings will be delivered by the Stanton Cross scheme, and 1,100 by Wellingborough North (effectively by the appeal site). Without those two contributions, the Council would have, in effect, only just over a two year housing land supply [5.42, 5.43].
95 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
11.47 Against that background, it is clear that the Council accepted in the AMR that there would need to be parallel development at WEAST and Upper Redhill in order to achieve the housing targets for the area. The delivery of 1,100 dwellings at Upper Redhill by 2014, which is assumed in the AMR, the CSS and the NNDC programme of development, could not be achieved if outline planning permission were not given for the appeal development now. There would simply not be time to deliver that number of dwellings within that period [5.60].
11.48 The Council say that only limited weight should be given to the AMR. It deals with a wider range of matters than simply housing, and does not include a detailed consideration of the planning merits of a development proposal. The NNDC programme of development refers to planning permission for the appeal development being anticipated within six months of October 2008, but that was obviously subject to consideration of the actual application [6.47].
11.49 It is not clear to me when the obstacles to the delivery of houses at Stanton Cross will have been overcome. It is not clear to me when houses would be delivered at any other SUE in Wellingborough if planning permission at Upper Redhill is not given now. It is, however, abundantly clear to me that there will be a very significant shortfall in the number of dwellings delivered in Wellingborough in the period to 2014 if no contribution, or no significant contribution, is made from either WEAST or Upper Redhill. Indeed, there would be a significant shortfall if either of those SUEs were not to contribute to housing delivery.
11.50 It is against that background that I consider the relevant provisions of the Development Plan.
11.51 The CSS carried forward the previous LP commitment to WEAST as the initial SUE for Wellingborough. In order to meet housing requirements over the longer plan period of CSS, however, it introduced the possibility of further SUEs, including one to the north west of Wellingborough [6.30].
11.52 Policy 9 of the CSS permits the further SUEs to be brought forward once the original SUEs have been successfully established [6.38]. The original Wellingborough SUE at WEAST has not been successfully established. The further SUE at Wellingborough can therefore only be brought forward now if it complies with the exceptions policy contained in Policy 7 of the CSS [6.38].
11.53 Policy 7 would allow the further SUE which would be created by the appeal development to be brought forward if strategic and local infrastructure constraints can be resolved “at an earlier date” and either progress with the initial SUE at WEAST has been delayed or the supply of housing from other sources falls significantly below anticipated levels, provided in either case that efforts have been
96 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
made to identify and address obstacles and constraints to housing delivery [5.39].
11.54 It is agreed that the only infrastructure constraint affecting Upper Redhill is the lack of availability of IWIMP [5.53, 6.39].
11.55 The Council contend that the “earlier date” referred to in Policy 7(a) is a reference to the date shown in Figure 13 of the CSS for the north west Wellingborough SUE to come on stream (2011). Since the Appellants’ witness was prepared to agree that there was no reasonable prospect of the delivery of IWIMP by 2011, the Council contend that the infrastructure constraint cannot be removed at an “earlier date”, and the appeal development therefore cannot take advantage of the exception in Policy 7 [6.39].
11.56 The response of the Appellants is that paragraph 3.68 of the CSS makes it clear that the phasing of the SUEs shown in Figure 13 is intended to be a broad indication. It neither says nor implies that the IWIMP should be provided by 2011. It simply assumes (just as the Council did in their AMR) that it will be possible for delivery of housing at the further Wellingborough SUE to commence within the period 2011 to 2016. It is explicitly stated that the phasing of the further SUEs may be brought forward if required to maintain a continuous supply of housing. The Appellants state that that is precisely the case here, and that is the answer to any claim that the development of a further SUE would be premature [5.64, 9.36].
11.57 As it stands, Policy 7(a) seems to me to be somewhat ambiguously expressed. No existing date is specified at which the infrastructure constraint arising from the lack of IWIMP can be anticipated to be addressed. I share the view of the Appellants that there is nothing in Figure 13 which ties the provision of IWIMP to the date of 2011 [5.64]. That is simply the date at which houses are to be anticipated to be delivered from the SUE to the north west of Wellingborough.
11.58 Policy 7 states that the detailed phasing of SUEs in relation to infrastructure provision will be dealt with in Development Plan Documents, but that has not yet taken place. Policy 7 also states that the phasing of further SUEs at Wellingborough and Corby may be reviewed and brought forward. Similarly, that has not yet taken place. The first of those exercises would provide the date at which the initial expectation for the removal of infrastructure constraints would be established.
11.59 It seems to me, however, that the focus of Policy 7 is on securing housing delivery. WEAST is not delivering houses, despite the efforts which have been and are being made to identify and to address obstacles and constraints [5.56, 9.38]. The acceptance of authorising a start on development at Upper Redhill would help to meet the CSS priority to deliver housing, faced with the shortfall
97 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
from WEAST, which Figure 13 showed as producing dwellings by 2008 [5.55].
11.60 I agree with the Appellants that, without completed dwellings being delivered from the Stanton Cross scheme in particular by 2011, the Council’s planned housing trajectory could not be delivered. If the possibility of providing dwellings on the appeal site were also to be rejected, the Council’s plans for housing growth would be in complete disarray [5.57].
11.61 Paragraph 3.62 of the CSS indicates a willingness to accept suitable interim solutions if delivery of housing in accordance with the requirements of the strategy is put at risk. There is an interim solution in this case, which would allow the delivery of 1,500 houses before any access to IWIMP is required [5.65].
11.62 The housing pressures facing Wellingborough arise largely from elsewhere in England. They are strategic in their scale and implications. It is the Government’s priority that additional housing is brought forward here to meet national housing shortages. In this particular area it is an explicit objective of Government policy to achieve a supply of housing land on a scale which exceeds the market’s past rate of take up. This is an important part of the response to the national predicament of acute housing shortage. Wellingborough is within a formally declared Growth Area, properly and lawfully embedded in the statutory Development Plan [5.57, 5.71].
11.63 The Council suggest that the grant of planning permission at Upper Redhill would flood the market with development land and effectively inhibit or make more difficult development at WEAST. But development at Stanton Cross is currently restrained not only by market conditions and viability, but by land ownership problems [5.68, 6.41, 6.42].
11.64 I note that there is no objection from the lead developer of Stanton Cross to the present appeal, and that that developer has previously accepted that houses would be delivered to the market at the same time by both Upper Redhill and Stanton Cross [5.69, 5.70, 6.44]. Although that approach was explicitly rejected in favour of a consecutive order in the CSS, it would not be in line with CSS policy to produce a situation in which neither of the Wellingborough SUEs was providing dwellings to meet the housing need [5.57, 6.45]. Indeed, the CSS accepts that housing would be provided simultaneously from both SUEs once the initial SUE has been successfully established [5.66], and the same position is recognised in the AMR and the NNDC programme of development [5.60].
11.65 The Government has been specifically asked in the recent past to consider a downward revision of targets for the production of dwellings in the light of the current market downturn. That recommendation was expressly rejected [5.72, 9.28, 9.33, 9.85].
98 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
In fact, that response was reinforced by a letter to Chief Planning Officers emphasising that Local Planning Authorities should work to ensure that land supply is in place to deliver more housing as the industry returns to health. That is seen as a necessary condition to facilitate a speedy recovery of the housing market when demand starts to pick up [5.73].
11.66 I conclude that the development of a SUE to the north and west of Wellingborough at this time would not be in conflict with the Development Plan.
The viability of the appeal development and its planning obligation
11.67 At the Pre Inquiry Meeting (“PIM”) for this case, I asked for the Section 106 obligation (which was to be expected having regard to Policy 6 of the CSS) to be provided at an early date [6.50]. In fact, the eventual form of the obligation was not provided until 14 July 2009, following an adjournment to allow the document to be finalised [1.12].
11.68 The Council and the Rule 6 parties consider that the obligation meets all of their requirements [6.52]. The focus of the Council’s attack on the document therefore shifted from its content to its viability, and indeed the viability of the development to support such an extensive obligation [6.52].
11.69 This issue was raised at a late stage. There is no reference to it in the Council’s putative reasons for refusal or in their Statement of Case. The possibility that viability evidence would need to be given at the inquiry was mentioned by both parties at the PIM, but was apparently not progressed in various meetings between the parties which took place after the PIM and before the opening of the inquiry [5.89].
11.70 In my view, this is extremely regrettable, because it resulted in the evidence on this important topic being less helpful than no doubt would otherwise have been the case.
11.71 For the Appellants, Professor Lock raised in his statement of evidence of 5 May 2009 the viability of WEAST given the scale and cost of meeting its obligations under its Section 106 Agreement [5.90].
11.72 The Council have not challenged that evidence, but raised instead the viability of the appeal development in a rebuttal proof from Mr Durman produced on 26 May 2009 [5.90, 5.91]. The suggestion that the development would not be viable was then expanded during the course of the inquiry into a suggestion that the Section 106 obligation in relation to the appeal development could not be delivered, and was in fact a fantasy document upon which no reliance could be placed [6.55, 6.67].
99 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
11.73 In North Northamptonshire, a consultancy firm, EDAW, have produced a model which is used to assess the viability of proposed developments and their ability to support infrastructure contributions [5.93]. In this case, EDAW had been asked to use the model to explore various assumptions [5.94]. Information, apparently from EDAW, was submitted to the inquiry, but EDAW subsequently asked that this should be withdrawn [5.95, 5.96, 6.61, 6.62].
11.74 The apparently unauthorised document was not withdrawn. In fact, the Council contend that it is a document to which the highest weight should be attached in the determination of the appeal [6.62].
11.75 I cannot view the document in that way, given what I was told of its provenance [6.61]. I consider that, given the circumstances in which the document came before the inquiry, with the apparent author asking that it should be withdrawn [5.95], very limited weight can be attached to it.
11.76 I note its apparent conclusion that the appeal development would not be viable if land values return to pre market downturn levels by 2016, or even to a slightly lower value by 2013 [6.63, 6.65], but the value of that assessment is substantially reduced by the information fed into the model, which does not accord with the reality of the situation in a variety of ways. It makes an inaccurate assumption about the tenure split of affordable housing. It makes assumptions about the content of the Section 106 obligation which must have differed in other ways from the provisions eventually agreed. It makes an assumption about the stage at which infrastructure works will be commenced which may or may not be accurate [6.64]. I do not criticise the model on this account. It is understandable that these problems would arise when the Section 106 obligation was settled only at such a late stage.
11.77 On the other hand, the Appellants suggest that land values in Wellingborough will return to pre downturn figures more quickly [5.97] and that the required uplift is less than the Council’s witness claimed [5.98]. But that information was only contained in a written representation on behalf of the Appellants, which could not be tested by cross examination. Various other general written views were also produced [5.98, 5.101, 5.104]. They were contradictory, and in one case related to Gross Domestic Product rather than land values. I find none of them particularly helpful in reaching a firm conclusion on the issue. I also note, however, that the AMR and the NNDC programme of development expressly state that market conditions have been taken into account in their assumptions relating to the timing of delivery of development. The Council could point to no market change to justify their apparent change of view between the preparation of the AMR and the NNDC programme of development and the present assessment of market conditions [5.99].
100 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
11.78 The evidence on this matter could have been substantially improved if the Section 106 obligation had been finalised in a timely way and if evidence had been exchanged based on the contents of the obligation.
11.79 The Appellants in this case are part of a group which is very substantially involved in development within MK/SM [5.2 to 5.4]. They are experienced developers, who are able to take their own view of the property market. It would be open to them to commence development before land values have fully returned to pre downturn levels, as they have done elsewhere in the area [5.102, 5.105].
11.80 They have negotiated a Section 106 obligation in the light of the present economic situation, and take the view that they will be able to carry out the appeal development and to honour the obligation [5.106], but it is fair to make the point, as the Council do, that the Appellants’ own viability analysis has not been subject to scrutiny [6.68]. It is equally fair to note, however, that the Council apparently continued up to and during the inquiry to seek benefits in the Section 106 obligation.
11.81 Councillor Bass raised a question regarding the financial resources of the Appellants in this case. It was answered by reference to the resources of various associated companies [9.23]. The extent to which any associated company would support the liabilities of the Appellants in this case is not a matter, however, on which any evidence has been provided to me.
11.82 Having regard to the extent to which the Appellants and their associated companies are involved in major developments elsewhere in the MK/SM area and the extent to which they are involved in partnership working in Wellingborough, I conclude that the Section 106 obligation in the present case has been entered into in good faith. If it is honoured, I conclude below that it would address the impact of the appeal development, subject to a point concerning affordable housing. On balance, I conclude that the obligation should be regarded as credible in the context of the viability of the appeal development, but I draw to the attention of the Secretary of State the relatively limited evidence base on which that conclusion on viability is founded.
Coalescence with the Harrowden Villages
11.83 Elected Members of the Council expressed concern at the inquiry at the extent to which the appeal development would result in coalescence between Wellingborough and the Harrowden Villages [9.6, 9.19]. Similar views were expressed on behalf of the Great Harrowden Parish Meeting [9.31], the Redhill Grange Community Association [9.45], the Furnace Lane Action Group [9.92], by Ms
101 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Shelley Lawrence-Harris [9.107] and by some of the local Parish Councils [10.14].
11.84 In fact, I agree with the Appellants that Policy 1 of the CSS accepts the principle of SUEs in and around Wellingborough. Paragraph 3.13 of the CSS implicitly accepts that the locations of SUEs have been selected to avoid the issue of coalescence between settlements [5.77].
11.85 The planning guidance prepared by the Council for the Wellingborough North SUE draws the boundary of the SUE site below the ridge line on the 90 metres contour in order to protect the setting of Great Harrowden. The defined boundary of the appeal development addresses that point following the changes made to the application in October 2008 [5.78].
11.86 The Landscape Assessment submitted by the Appellants indicates that, with the built development below the 90 metres contour, there would be no significant impact on the villages of Great and Little Harrowden [5.80]. Little Harrowden lies some 700 metres north west of what would be the closest point of the appeal development [2.2].
11.87 The illustrative plans for the site show some provision for allotments and play areas above the 90 metres contour. Such provision seems to me to be in line with the guidance given in PPS7 by providing beneficial uses of that land by way of appropriate facilities for sport and recreation, allowing public access to an area which is currently not open to the public. There would be scope to integrate such facilities in the parkland proposed in the gap between the development and Great Harrowden, given that the appeal application is in outline [5.82, 5.83].
11.88 I conclude that the appeal development would not result in coalescence with either of the Harrowden Villages to the north.
Other objections and representations
11.89 The appeal falls to be considered against current Development Plan documents and planning guidance, whether or not they were in existence at the time the applications was made [9.41, 9.42, 9.83, 9.108].
11.90 Members of the Council criticise the extent of consultation on the CSS and the process followed for its adoption [9.3]. The Inspector who dealt with the Examination in Public of the CSS expressly found, however, that the requirement for community involvement had been met [5.109], and the adopted CSS is part of the statutory Development Plan [4.1].
11.91 While the consultation draft of the CSS showed the preferred direction of growth of the proposed northern SUE to the north west
102 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
of Wellingborough, paragraph 3.84 of the CSS makes it clear that the Key Diagram on page 36 of the CSS identifies only the broad locations of proposed SUEs. Paragraph 5.2 of the Council’s more specific adopted planning guidance on the Wellingborough North SUE makes it clear that the area to the east of the A509 has been included so as to integrate Redhill Grange into the extension [5.79, 5.123, 9.43, 9.79, 9.100]. I accept the finding of the ES that there would be no significant adverse impact on adjoining residential and educational buildings from proximity to the industrial estate [5.113, 9.54, 9.72, 9.74, 9.75].
11.92 I share the view of the Great Harrowden Parish Meeting that the appeal development would be in conflict with saved Policy G3 of the LP, because Phase 3 of the appeal development would be within an identified area of restraint. Whilst I have concluded that the appeal development would not result in undesirable coalescence, it cannot be said that it would not contribute to coalescence at all, in the sense that (although leaving an undeveloped area) it would bring development closer to Great Harrowden in particular. This conflict with a saved Development Plan policy will need to be weighed in the balance in relation to the appeal development in due course. Similarly, the proposal would not comply with all of the requirements of saved Policy G6. It would not offend against saved Policy G4, however, because no part of the development would be within the restricted infill village area, and in my view it would not have an adverse impact on the size, form, character or setting of the village and its environs [9.32].
11.93 The increase in the quantum of residential development in the Wellingborough North SUE was approved by the Council in its planning guidance adopted in January 2009 [4.13, 5.110, 9.4, 9.36]. The level of retail provision proposed is also within what the Council determined to be acceptable [3.1, 4.20, 9.9]. That planning guidance also determined that Redhill Grange was not to be regarded as a separate settlement [5.79, 9.6, 9.19, 9.44, 9.45]. The appeal development would maintain some separation from Redhill Grange [5.116]. The planning guidance also accepted the concept of building houses between Redhill Grange and the Finedon Road Industrial Estate [5.113, 9.10].
11.94 The Local Highway Authority are satisfied with the highway arrangements proposed as part of the appeal development subject to the conditions and obligations offered. The issues have been considered in detail and at length by the professionally qualified officers concerned [7.1 to 7.4, 8.1 to 8.7, 9.7, 9.34, 9.48, 9.49, 9.87, 9.94, 9.104, 10.15, 10.17].
11.95 The Section 106 obligation provides benefits at different stages throughout the development [5.87, 5.88, 9.11, 9.13], and it meets the requirements of the Council and the Rule 6 parties [6.52]. It is not the case that no employment would be created within Phase 1
103 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
[5.111, 9.8, 9.33, 9.50]. Nor is it correct to state that the public transport contribution would be limited to five years [5.111, 9.11].
11.96 Kettering Borough Council point out that the Section 106 obligation would accept the possibility of some offsite provision of affordable housing, and that this is not robustly justified, as required by PPS3 [5.87, 10.13]. In fact, the CSS sets the headline target for affordable housing to be achieved from any significant development at 30% [4.17]. The Council have, from the outset, not pushed to achieve the CSS target, seeking instead a 20% figure, together with a further 15% of low cost housing (discounted by 30%). In the event, the Section 106 obligation provides for 10% of affordable housing in the first phase of the development so long as the percentage is eventually made up to 20% overall [5.87]. As the Borough Council say, the arrangements allow for the possibility of some of that provision off site to assist the financial viability of the scheme [5.87]. In my view, this arrangement does not meet the requirements of CSS Policy 15 or of PPS3.
11.97 Some medical provision would be made by the Section 106 obligation, which has been negotiated with the relevant authorities [5.115, 9.16, 9.95, 9.105, 10.2 to 10.5].
11.98 The Section 106 obligation has not made specific provision for a Christian Church within the development as requested by the Reverend Melvyn Pereira [9.116 to 9.122]. It seems to me that there would be scope, however, for some religious use of the neighbourhood facilities which it would be proposed to provide.
11.99 The possible provision for secondary education has been negotiated by the Local Education Authority. In my view it would not be sensible to provide for secondary education on site when the need for additional provision to meet demand from this and other substantial new development is not at the moment certain [9.50].
11.100 In terms of the impact of the development on biodiversity, the majority of the land is at present under intensive arable cultivation, with limited hedgerows and trees. As a result, the site is relatively species poor. Neither Natural England nor the Wildlife Trust has objected to the appeal application [5.118, 5.119, 9.20, 9.71, 9.113, 10.7, 10.8].
11.101 I consider that the proposed arrangements would deal satisfactorily with the issue of archaeological remains [5.125, 9.90] and that there would be no damage to the setting of the historic buildings and registered garden in the area. I note that English Heritage have no objection to the appeal proposal [5.127, 9.111].
11.102 In relation to the impact of lighting on night skies, I consider that the impact of the proposal would make only a minimal difference in the context of the present situation [5.128 to 5.130, 9.112].
104 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
11.103 The retention of the attractive treescape between the old and the present route of the A509 is something which was promised by the Appellants, but the proposals shown on Parameter Plan I (Document AD3.10) appear not to honour that promise fully. I do not understand why that should not be the case, and I see no reason why the matter should not be addressed in any approval of details [5.116, 9.51, 9.64 to 9.69].
11.104 There has been no objection to the proposal from Anglian Water [5.114, 9.15, 9.57, 10.11], and the original objection of the Environment Agency has been withdrawn following agreement on acceptable conditions [5.126, 9.93, 9.114, 10.9].
11.105 In my view, it is clearly not the case that the appeal development would bring to an end the physical separation of the three growth towns [9.109]. CSS Policy 10 deals with development in open countryside outside the SUEs [9.108]. The CSS recognises that the SUEs will involve the use of greenfield sites [5.37, 5.41, 5.66].
11.106 The Wellingborough Civic Society raise the issues of the loss of agricultural land and the loss of what they say is Green Belt [10.19]. There would be a loss of more than 200 hectares of Grade 3a agricultural land, which ranks as amongst the best and most versatile agricultural land. Although the Council did not consult DEFRA about this at the time of receipt of the planning application, because the view was taken at that time that the proposal was not in conflict with the Development Plan, the Council argue that this matter was before DEFRA when the CSS was under consideration [6.31]. As regards Green Belt, I was advised at the inquiry that no land affected by the appeal application came within any area of Green Belt. There is no authoritative evidence that the appeal site is affected by a wartime MOD pipeline [9.20, 10.10].
11.107 I conclude that, subject to the need to consider the issue of compliance with saved Policies G3 and G6 of the LP and the arrangements for affordable housing provision, there is nothing in these other objections and representations which would indicate that the appeal development should be refused.
The issues raised in the Secretary of State’s Statement of Matters
Conformity with the Development Plan
11.108 Relevant elements of the Development Plan are listed at 11.9 above. There is a good deal of agreement between the parties that the appeal proposals comply in many respects with the requirements of the Development Plan, and I have indicated at paragraphs 11.20, 11.92 and 11.96 above that I share those views, subject only to two points – the provisions of CSS Policy 15 on affordable housing and the provisions of saved Policies G3 and G6 of the LP.
105 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
11.109 For the reasons outlined between 11.40 and 11.66 above, I conclude that the development of a SUE to the north west of Wellingborough at this time would not conflict with the Development Plan. The original SUE at WEAST is not producing houses in accordance with the delivery requirements of the CSS, and in my view the crucial need for the delivery of houses brings into operation the exceptions set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of CSS Policy 7, so that permission could be given to allow the commencement of work on a further SUE now.
11.110 In relation to affordable housing, although the 20% level of provision proposed is apparently acceptable to the Council, it would not meet the target level of provision specified in CSS Policy 15 [4.6, 4.17]. Moreover, the proposal is that 20% of the total number of dwellings on the appeal development would eventually be provided by way of affordable housing, but the availability of the units is “backloaded” during the development, so that only 10% of the first 1,000 dwellings would be affordable units [5.87]. The Council suggest that this would assist the overall financial viability of the scheme, and I consider that to be a sensible reason in all the circumstances of this particular case, given the scale of the other contributions included in the Section 106 obligation, to accept a reduction in the Policy 15 target, but I draw the matter to the attention of the Secretary of State.
11.111 The Council’s planning guidance for the SUE indicated acceptance of 20% affordable housing on the site, but with 15% of the market housing on the site in addition being available at low cost. That would not be delivered by the executed Section 106 obligation. The request for the provision of market housing at a cost reduction does not appear to be founded on any CSS policy.
11.112 The arrangements for the provision of affordable housing put forward in the Section 106 obligation would also allow, subject to the agreement of the Council, the provision of affordable units outside the appeal development to replace units within the appeal development in later phases, again to assist the financial viability of the scheme [5.87]. The final point in paragraph 29 of PPS3 requires such a proposal to be robustly justified, and I agree with Kettering Borough Council that (save for the general challenge to the viability of the overall scheme and the obligation, which the Appellants reject) no such justification has been produced in this case [10.13]. Again, it is a matter which I draw to the attention of the Secretary of State.
11.113 In relation to saved Policy G3 of the LP, as I recognise in paragraph 11.91 above, Phase 3 of the appeal proposal would be developed in the area around Redhill Grange, which was identified as an area of restraint in the LP. That LP policy was saved by direction of the Secretary of State in September 2007. When the Council considered their planning guidance for the SUE in January 2009, they specifically included the area around Redhill Grange as
106 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
an accepted part of the agreed site for a SUE. This guidance does not rank as part of the Development Plan, but it is a document to which I consider that some weight should be attached. It postdates the LP, and clearly reflects the approach of the more recent CSS and RSS in relation to the delivery of housing in the area [4.7, 4.8]. Indeed, the Council’s position at the inquiry was that, if a smaller housing development was to take place in the area, it should be located on the Phase 3 site in preference to other parts of the appeal site [6.23].
11.114 The same considerations apply in my view to saved Policy G6. More recent policy documents reflect a different approach in relation to the appeal site.
11.115 Overall, however, I conclude that there is some small element of conflict with aspects of the Development Plan.
Consistency with PPS1
11.116 For the reasons set out between 11.23 and 11.39 above, I have concluded that there is a reasonable prospect of the IWIMP being delivered within the lifetime of the permission being sought in this appeal.
11.117 I therefore consider that the proposed development could deliver sustainable development, with an integrated approach to social cohesion and the protection and enhancement of the environment, and that it would make prudent use of natural resources. I consider that the design principles which would be followed would be appropriate in their context and take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area. The development would take account of the access needs of all in society. In my view, no issue of prematurity would arise [5.134 to 5.137].
11.118 I note that, subject to their disagreement on the efficacy of a Grampian condition to deliver a sustainable development, the Council essentially agree that the proposal would be consistent with PPS1.
11.119 I conclude that the proposal would be consistent with PPS1.
Consistency with PPS3
11.120 Subject to the reservation expressed above regarding the arrangements for affordable housing provision, I consider that the appeal development has the capacity to provide high quality, well designed housing, with a mix of market and affordable housing and with a good range of community facilities. The proposal would make effective and efficient use of the land concerned, none of which is previously developed land [5.138 to 5.141].
107 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
11.121 Again, I note that the Council do not substantially object to the argument that the development would be consistent with PPS3, subject to their view that the arrangements for the delivery of the IWIMP are uncertain and that the development of the appeal site would prejudice the development of WEAST [6.77 to 6.83].
11.122 As indicated at 11.39 above, I consider that there is a reasonable prospect of IWIMP being delivered during the lifetime of the permission sought. For the reasons indicated at 11.63 and 11.64 above, I do not consider that the development of the appeal site would prejudice the development of WEAST.
11.123 I conclude that the proposal would be consistent with PPS3, subject only to the reservation I express regarding the level of provision for and arrangements for the delivery of affordable housing.
Consistency with PPG13
11.124 Subject to the Council’s concern regarding the deliverability of IWIMP (on which matter I have found against the Council and in favour of the Appellants), there is no issue between the parties regarding consistency with PPG13 [5.142, 6.84].
11.125 I conclude that the proposal would be consistent with PPG13.
Conditions
11.126 As indicated at 11.39 above, I consider that a Grampian condition requiring the construction of IWIMP before Phase 2 or Phase 3 of the development could be occupied would be an acceptable condition.
11.127 I do not consider that it is reasonable to require all approvals and funding for IWIMP to be in place before any development could commence, because that would deny the area, the region and the country the opportunity to have the advantage of the earlier delivery of 1,500 dwellings [5.145, 6.86].
11.128 The remainder of the conditions proposed at the inquiry are substantially agreed between the parties [5.143 to 5.146, 6.87]. I also agree. In my view those conditions are reasonable and necessary, and they meet the other tests set out in Circular 11/95.
11.129 The conditions I suggest should be imposed on any grant of planning permission are therefore set out in Appendix B to this report. The matters they are intended to address are indicated by the side headings.
11.130 Conditions 4, 4A, 5 and 5A would be necessary to maintain control over the phasing and appearance of the development [4.16, 4.17, 6.77, 10.6], and Conditions 10 to 12 would deal with existing and
108 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
proposed landscaping in accordance with CSS Policies 5, 13 and 16 [4.23, 4.24, 10.7, 10.8].
11.131 Conditions 6 to 8 would tie the detail of the development substantially to the masterplan and parameter plans which have formed the basis for consideration of the outline planning application in accordance with CSS Policies 13 and 16 [4.23].
11.132 Condition 9 would protect existing public rights of way during the course of development, and Condition 13 would seek to establish and protect archaeological remains on the site [4.26]; Conditions 14 and 15 would protect the residential amenity of future occupiers during construction and subsequently [4.29 to 4.32]; and Conditions 16 to 21 would address issues of potential light pollution, flood risk and drainage, all in accordance with CSS Policies 13 and 16 [4.27, 4.28, 5.126, 10.9, 10.11].
11.133 Conditions 22 to 25 would promote an energy efficient design of buildings within the development in accordance with CSS Policy 14 [4.33].
11.134 Conditions 26 and 27 would seek o avoid damage to the retail vitality and viability of the town centre of Wellingborough in accordance with CSS Policy 12 [3.1].
11.135 Conditions 28 to 32 would seek to address highway and access works throughout the development in accordance with CSS Policies 4, 13 and 16 and saved Policy T6 of the LP [4.34, 4.35, 5.122, 8.2, 8.5]. In particular, Condition 30 would honour the commitment to consultation with the residents of Redhill Grange on the implications of detailed alterations to the arrangements for access to the Redhill Grange Estate [5.117, 5.122].
11.136 I conclude that the conditions set out in Appendix B should be attached to any planning permission granted in this case.
The need for and the acceptability of the obligation offered
11.137 An executed obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is now available, and would provide important benefits associated with the appeal development [1.12, 5.87, 6.88]. The arrangements set up would address the issue that some of the appeal site is currently owned by the Council. They would make proper provision for any subsequent owner of that part of the site to be bound by the obligations in the executed Deed, with full joint and several liability [5.86].
11.138 I consider that the executed obligation makes proper provision to prescribe the nature of the development, to compensate for loss or damage caused by the development and to mitigate the impact of the development in ways which would make acceptable a proposal
109 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
which would otherwise be unacceptable having regard to local, regional and national planning policies.
11.139 For the reasons outlined above, I have some reservations about the provision made for affordable housing.
11.140 I note and accept the provision made for sporting facilities, which in my view deals properly with serving the need arising from the development, rather than meeting the needs of both the new and the existing population, as Sport England originally requested [5.87, 10.6].
11.141 Not all the requests made for provision in the obligation have been met or met in full [4.17, 9.116 to 9.122, 10.4, 10.6], but to meet all of the requests in full would clearly have had an impact on the viability of the development and the credibility of the obligation. Those are matters on which, not without some difficulty, I have concluded at 11.81 above that the obligation offered can have reliance placed upon it.
11.142 I consider that the provisions would comply with the Government’s policy on planning obligations as set out in Circular 05/2005 and would be likely to fulfil the objectives for which they have been created. They are relevant to planning, necessary to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, fairly related in scale and kind to the development proposed, and reasonable in other respects.
11.143 I conclude that the terms of the Section 106 obligation are acceptable, and that reliance can be placed upon them to address aspects of the appeal proposals which would otherwise be unacceptable.
Environmental information
11.144 In preparing this report, I have had regard to the environmental information contained in the Environmental Statement (“ES”), together with the amendments made to it in October 2008 (which arose from a Regulation 19 request made in relation to the duplicate case) [1.6, 1.7], to the comments on it from statutory consultees and members of the public, to the mitigation measures proposed and incorporated in the proposed conditions and in the obligation offered, and to the environmental information derived from evidence given at the inquiry and contained in representations to the inquiry.
11.145 There was one challenge to the ES in a written representation from East Northamptonshire Council [10.16], but I am satisfied on the basis of my consideration of the ES and on the basis of the evidence which I heard at the inquiry that that challenge was not justified [5.126, 5.130]. I consider that the risk of flooding and the
110 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
socio-economic impact on East Northamptonshire District have been properly assessed in the ES.
11.146 I am satisfied that the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 as amended have been met in this case.
Overall conclusion
11.147 I have therefore concluded that
a. There is a reasonable prospect of IWIMP being delivered within the lifetime of the permission being sought in this appeal.
b. The development of a SUE to the north west of Wellingborough at this time would not be in conflict with the Development Plan.
c. The planning obligation submitted by the Appellants should be regarded as credible in the context of the viability of the appeal development.
d. The appeal development would not result in undesirable coalescence with the Harrowden Villages to the north.
e. Apart from issues concerning affordable housing and compliance with saved Policies G3 and G6 of the LP, none of the other points of objection raised by interested parties indicate that the appeal development should be refused.
f. The appeal development would be consistent with PPS1 and PPG13, but it would not be fully consistent with either the Development Plan or PPS3 because of the issues concerning Policies G3 and G6 of the LP and the proposed arrangements for affordable housing.
11.148 It is not unusual for a major development proposal not to accord with the Development Plan in every respect. When that happens, there is a need to consider whether the proposal is in substantial compliance, and then to weigh the impact of non compliance.
11.149 In this case, it is clear that there is substantial compliance with the Development Plan. The approach taken in LP Policies G3 and G6 has been overtaken in more recent Development Plan documents and in the Council’s own planning guidance for the SUE to the north west of Wellingborough. The affordable housing provision and the arrangements which would permit off site housing to be counted against the requirement are not ideal, but are seen as assisting the viability of the appeal proposal, which would deliver other substantial benefits. Because of the urgent need to achieve delivery of housing in Wellingborough, and because of the contribution which the appeal site could make, on balance, in the
111 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
particular circumstances of this case, I consider that the lower level of affordable housing provision and the other arrangements for its provision should exceptionally be accepted.
11.150 The appeal proposal would allow an earlier start than would otherwise be possible on providing housing in an important growth area, where delivery is required by local, regional and national policy. This would be an important benefit, which in my view would very substantially outweigh the limited non compliance with Development Plan and PPS3 policy.
11.151 For that reason, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix B to this report.
12. RECOMMENDATION
12.1 I recommend that the appeal be allowed and planning permission granted, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix B to this report.
Michael Ellison
INSPECTOR
112 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
APPENDIX A - LIST OF DOCUMENTS
Core Documents
CD1 Development Plan Documents
CD1.1 The East Midlands Regional Plan published March 2009
CD1.2 The Milton Keynes-South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy March 2005
CD1.3 The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy adopted June 2008
CD1.3A Schedule of Changes to the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy proposed or identified by the Joint Planning Unit and recommended by the Inspector (May 2008)
CD1.4 Saved policies of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan
CD1.5 Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan (March 2006)
CD1.6 Saved policies of the Wellingborough Local Plan
CD2 Formal and informal guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents
CD2.1 Adopted Planning Guidance for Wellingborough North Sustainable Urban Extension (January 2009)
CD2.2 Consultation Draft Planning Contributions Guide (June 2008)
CD2.3 SPG on Affordable Housing (July 2004)
CD2.4 SPG on Parking (March 2003)
CD2.5 SPG on the Use of Planning Obligations (November 2003)
CD2.6 SPG on Planning Out Crime in Northamptonshire (February 2004)
CD2.7 Building Better Places: How to Contribute to Sustainable Development (April 2003)
CD2.8 Wellingborough East Development Framework SPG (November 2003)
CD2.9 SPG on Planning Obligations and Local Education Authority School Provision (June 2004, updated February 2006)
CD2.10 Sustainable Design SPD (May 2009)
113 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
CD2.11 Creating Sustainable Communities: Planning Obligations Framework and Guidance – Second Consultation Draft (NCC March 2008)
CD2.12 Policing Contributions from Development Schemes (Northamptonshire Police May 2007)
CD2.13 Contributions from Development Schemes (Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue Service February 2008)
CD3 Local Development Framework Evidence Base
CD3.1 Wellingborough Employment Land Study (September 2006)
CD3.2 Wellingborough Sports Facilities Strategy (September 2008)
CD3.3 Borough Council of Wellingborough – Planning for Open Spaces, Sport and Recreation (July 2005)
CD3.4 North Northants Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2007)
CD3.5 Wellingborough Housing Needs Assessment (2007)
CD3.6 Northamptonshire’s Environmental Character and Green Infrastructure Suite, River Nene Regional Park
CD3.7 Wellingborough Sustainable Expansion Areas – Appropriate Retail Provision (Drivers Jonas, August 2008)
CD3.8 Borough Council of Wellingborough – Annual Monitoring Report 2008
CD3.9 North Northants Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (February 2009)
CD3.10 North Northants Urban Extensions Study (October 2005)
CD4 National Guidance
CD4.1 PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, including supplementary publication Planning and Climate Change and companion guide The Planning System: General Principles
CD4.2 PPS3: Housing
CD4.3 PPG4: Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms
CD4.4 PPS6: Planning for Town Centres
CD4.5 PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
CD4.6 PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management
114 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
CD4.7 PPS12: Local Development Frameworks
CD4.8 PPG13: Transport
CD4.9 PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment
CD4.10 PPG16: Archaeology
CD4.11 PPG17: Open Space, Sport and Recreation
CD4.12 PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control
CD4.13 PPG24: Planning and Noise
CD4.14 PPG25: Development and Flood Risk
CD5 Circulars
CD5.1 Circular 11/95 – The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions
CD5.2 Circular 05/2005 – Planning Obligations
CD5.3 Circular 2/99 – Environmental Impact Assessment
CD5.4 DfT Circular 02/2007 – Planning and the Strategic Road Network
CD6 Other Government Publications
CD6.1 The Sustainable Communities Plan (2003)
CD6.2 The East Midlands Regional Housing Strategy 2008-2016
CD6.3 By Design: Urban Design in the Planning System – a companion guide to PPG1 (DETR and CABE, 2000)
CD6.4 By Design: Better Places to Live - a companion guide to PPG3 (DETR and CABE, 2001)
CD6.5 Urban Design Compendium (English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation, 2000)
CD6.6 Millennium Villages and Sustainable Communities (DETR, 2000)
CD6.7 Sustainable Urban Extensions: Planned through Design – Executive Summary (The Prince’s Foundation/ English Partnerships/DETR/CPRE, 2000)
CD6.8 Places, Streets and Movement – a Companion Guide to Design Bulletin 32 (Residential Roads and Footpaths) (DETR, 2000)
CD6.9 By Design: Urban Design and the Planning System: Towards Better Practice (DTLR, 2001)
115 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
CD6.10 Design for Homes, Popular Housing Research – Perceptions of Privacy and Density (2003)
CD6.11 Start with the Park (CABE Space, 2005)
CD6.12 Great Places to Live (CABE, 2008 edition)
CD6.13 Manual for Streets (DfT, 2007)
CD6.14 DCLG/DfT Guidance on Transport Assessments (2007)
CD6.15 Transport White Paper – A New Deal for Transport (1998)
CD6.16 White Paper: The Future of Transport – A Network for 2030 (2004)
CD6.17 Delivering a Sustainable Transport System (2008)
CD6.18 Regional Funding Allocation for the East Midlands 2007-08 Progress Report
CD7 Other Relevant Documents
CD7.1 Northamptonshire Transport Strategy for Growth
CD7.2 Local Transport Plan (NCC)
CD7.3 NCC’s Design Guide for Residential Roads (November 2003)
CD7.4 NCC’s Place and Movement Guide (December 2008)
CD7.5 North Northamptonshire Development Company Programme for Development “Driving Sustainable Growth”
CD7.6 Committee Report including appendices
Application Documents
AD1 Forms, Certificates and Schedules
AD1.1 Application form and certificates dated 4 March 2008
AD1.2 Development specification, version 3, 10 October 2008
AD1.3 Schedule of development, version 3, 13 October 2008
AD1.4 Building dimension schedule, version 1, 29 February 2008
AD1.5 Deleted
AD1.6 Schedule of owners, version 1, 29 February 2008
116 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
AD2 Letters
AD2.1 BCW confirmation of registration of the application, 19 August 2008
AD2.2 DLA letter of 1 May 2008 relating to main issues and timetable including Wellingborough Housing Trajectory – Methodology note and updates (April 2008)
AD2.3 DLA letter of 13 October 2008 relating to Regulation 19 applying to both applications
AD2.4 DLA letter referring to Regulation 19 response and enclosures
AD2.5 Plan BBD008/326 dated August 2008
AD2.6 Plan BBD008/053 dated 19 August 2008
AD2.7 Plan BBD008/054 dated 19 August 2008
AD2.8 Consideration of Curtis Land site – response to Regulation 19 dated October 2008
AD2.9 Transport Statement – Curtis Land dated 1 September 2008
AD2.10 Noise Mitigation Note
AD2.11 Upper Redhill Waste Note dated September 2008
AD3 Plans
AD3.1 Deleted
AD3.2 Parameter Plan A – Planning Application Boundary and location plan (Drawing BBD008/043)
AD3.3 Parameter Plan B – Development Framework (Drawing BBD008/010/BC)
AD3.4 Parameter Plan C – Movement Framework (Drawing BBD008/012/AB)
AD3.5 Parameter Plan D – Green Infrastructure (Drawing BBD008/014U)
AD3.6 Parameter Plan E – Density (Drawing BBD008/015/T)
AD3.7 Parameter Plan F – Built Form (Drawing BBD008/016/P)
AD3.8 Parameter Plan G – Building Height (Drawing BBD008/029/F)
AD3.9 Parameter Plan H – Phasing Plan – Phase 1 (Drawing BBD008/017.01/J)
117 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
AD3.10 Parameter Plan I – Phasing Plan – Phase 2 (Drawing BBD008/017.02/J)
AD3.11 Parameter Plan J – Phasing Plan – Phase 3 (Drawing BBD008/017.03/J)
AD3.12 For illustrative purposes, Drawing BBD008/014.01/U including calculation of open space requirements
AD4 Planning Documents
AD4.1 Planning Statement, February 2008
AD4.2 Design and Access Statement, February 2008
AD4.3 Statement of Local Engagement, February 2008
AD4.4 Green Infrastructure Statement, February 2008
AD4.5 Sustainability Strategy, September 2008
AD4.6 Landscape Strategy, September 2008
AD4.7 Health Impact Assessment, July 2008
AD4.8 Housing Statement and three appendices, September 2008
AD5 Environmental Statement
AD5.1 Environmental Statement volume 1: Non Technical Summary and Environmental Statement dated February 2008
AD5.2 Environmental Statement volume 2: Appendices and Drawings dated February 2008
AD5.3 Environmental Statement volume 3: Appendices and Drawings dated February 2008
AD5.4 Amendments to Masterplan – Addendum to Environmental Statement, dated October 2008
AD6 Transport Assessment
AD6.1 Transport Assessment, February 2008
AD6.2 Transport Assessment Figures, February 2008
AD6.3 Transport Assessment Appendices, February 2008
AD6.4 Travel Plan, February 2008
AD6.5 Public Transport Strategy, February 2008
118 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
AD7 Transport Technical Notes
AD7.1 Comparison of highway schemes based on the Joint Planning Unit Upper Redhill Proposals, March 2008
AD7.2 Turnells Mill Lane/London Road (A1593) and A509 (Park Farm Way roundabout to Wilby Way roundabout) – Select Link Analysis, 22 April 2008
AD7.3 Trip Rate Review, 28 April 2008
AD7.4 Study of existing public transport, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, 15 May 2008
AD7.5 Capacity analysis for the A509/A5128/A4500 roundabout and Hardwick Road/Gleneagles Drive/Queensway roundabout, 27 May 2008
AD7.6 Response to NCC – Upper Redhill Highways Analysis, 3 November 2008
Inquiry Documents
Appellants’ Documents
APP/0/1 Schedule of draft planning conditions in form proposed by Appellants, 1 June 2009 (superseded by APP/0/7, APP/0/11 and ultimately by APP/0/13)
APP/0/2 Draft Section 106 heads of terms (superseded by APP/0/8, APP/0/12 and ultimately by APP/0/16)
APP/0/3 Opening submissions on behalf of the Appellants
APP/0/4 Statement of Common Ground between the Appellants and the Borough Council of Wellingborough
APP/0/5 Statement of Common Ground between the Appellants and the Highways Agency
APP/0/6 Statement of Common Ground between the Appellants and Northamptonshire County Council
APP/0/7 Schedule of draft planning conditions in form proposed by Appellants, 9 June 2009 (superseded by APP/0/11 and ultimately by APP/0/13)
APP/0/8 Draft Section 106 Obligation (see also APP/0/12, but superseded by APP/0/16)
APP/0/9 Composite plan showing the appeal site in the context of surrounding locations and proposed developments
119 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
APP/0/10 Isham to Wellingborough Improvement Scheme – land and approximate costs
APP/0/11 Schedule of draft planning conditions in form proposed by Appellants, 11 June 2009 (superseded by APP/0/13)
APP/0/12 Draft Section 106 Obligation showing tracked changes (superseded by APP/0/16)
APP/0/13 Schedule of draft planning conditions in form proposed by Appellants, 18 June 2009
APP/0/14 Closing submissions on behalf of the Appellants
APP/0/15 Application for costs by the Appellants against Wellingborough Borough Council
APP/0/16 Executed Section 106 Agreement and Obligation
APP/1/1 Proof of evidence of Professor David Lock
APP/1/2 Appendices to the proof of Professor David Lock (bound in with APP/1/1)
APP/1/3 Summary proof of evidence of Professor David Lock
APP/1/4 Rebuttal evidence of Professor David Lock to the evidence of James Williams
APP/1/5 Appendices to APP/1/4
APP/1/6 Rebuttal evidence of Professor David Lock to the evidence of Nigel Durman
APP/1/7 Appendices to APP/1/6
APP/1/8 “Growing Together”, a Vision for the Future of North Northamptonshire, prepared by the Bee Bee Developments Stakeholder Group, March 2007
APP/1/9 Extract from the Wellingborough Town Map 1975
APP/1/10 Additional information provided by Professor David Lock regarding land ownership of the proposed line of the Isham to Wellingborough Improvement Scheme
APP/1/11 Statement by Professor David Lock responding to LPA/0/9
Local Planning Authority Documents
LPA/0/1 Notification to local residents of the inquiry arrangements
LPA/0/2 Schedule of draft planning conditions in form proposed by the Local Planning Authority, 1 June 2009
120 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
LPA/0/3 Opening submissions on behalf of the Local Planning Authority
LPA/0/4 Decision letter and Inspector’s report APP/T0355/A/08/2973713
LPA/0/5 Final report – East Midlands Regional Funding Allocation (Transport), February 2009
LPA/0/6 Copy letter of objection dated 3 February 2009 on behalf of the Wellingborough East Landowner Group
LPA/0/7 Report into the Examination of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy
LPA/0/8 Probity in Planning – a Note prepared by the Local Government Association, May 2009
LPA/0/9 Statement of Brian Lewis Stewart
LPA/0/10 High Court Judgement in R (oao Laura C and others) v LB Camden & SSETR & Barratt Homes DDSF Ltd [2001] EWHC Admin 1116
LPA/0/11 Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 4 February 2009 to consider application WP/2007/07509 (OEIA)
LPA/0/12 Copy email correspondence regarding consultation with DEFRA on the appeal application
LPA/0/13 Closing submissions on behalf of Wellingborough Borough Council
LPA/0/14 Extracts from the decision letter in APP/E2001/V/08/1203215
LPA/1/1 Summary proof of evidence of James Williams
LPA/1/2 Proof of evidence of James Williams
LPA/1/3 Appendices to LPA/1/2
LPA/1/4 Rebuttal proof of evidence of James Williams
LPA/1/5 Not used
LPA/1/6 Not used
LPA/1/7 Not used
LPA/1/8 East Midlands Regional Funding Allocation for Transport letter dated 6 July 2006
LPA/1/9 DfT Community Infrastructure Fund Round 2 Bidding Guidance
LPA/2/1 Proof of evidence of Nigel Durman
121 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
LPA/2/2 Upper Redhill Appraisal Report setting out joint views of EDAW and Mr Durman
LPA/2/3 Wellingborough Sustainable Urban Extension House Price Forecasts
LPA/2/4 Copy emails regarding LPA/2/2
LPA/2/5 Revised Upper Redhill Appraisal Report 1.3 (EDAW/AECOM, June 2009)
LPA/2/6 Copy email from Angus Duguid, EDAW/AECOM, seeking to withdraw LPA/2/2 and LPA/2/5
LPA/2/7 Copy correspondence regarding instructions to Mr Durman to act for the Council in connection with the appeal
Highways Agency Documents
HA/1/1 Proof of evidence of Victoria Bennett
HA/1/2 Summary proof of evidence of Victoria Bennett
Northamptonshire County Council Documents
CC/0/1 Position statement of 21 May 2009 in relation to the Isham to Wellingborough Road Improvement Scheme
CC/0/2 Position statement of 28 May 2009 in relation to education contributions
CC/0/3 Updated position statement of 10 June 2009 in relation to education contributions, replacing CC/0/2
CC/1/1 Proof of evidence of Chris Bond (position as at 5 May 2009)
CC/1/2 Further proof of evidence of Chris Bond, updating the position to 26 May 2009
Documents submitted by interested parties
FLAG/1 Description of FLAG and statement of Yvonne Blood, Chairperson
GHPM/1 Letter of objection to the 2007 application, which the Parish Meeting wish to have considered in relation to the appeal application
GHPM/2 Letter from the Chairman of the Great Harrowden Village Meeting authorising Mr John Evans to act as the representative of the meeting at the inquiry
122 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
GHPM/3 Proof of evidence of John Evans on behalf of the Great Harrowden Parish Meeting
GHPM/4 Appendices to the proof of evidence of John Evans
GM/1 Proof of evidence of Graham Mower
GM/2 Objection of Graham Mower to the 2007 duplicate planning application
GM/3 Aerial photograph showing area of woodland between the present A509 and the original route of the A509
GM/4 Ground level photograph of the wooded area in GM/3
GM/5 Ground level photograph of the wooded area in GM/3
GPT/1 Proof of evidence of Councillor Geoffrey Timms
HM/1 Proof of evidence of Hayley Mitchell
IB/1 Proof of evidence of Ian Brown
JB/1 Proof of evidence of John Burton
JB/2 Agenda and report covering item 4 for the meeting of the Wellingborough Borough Council Development Committee held on 7 January 2009
JB/3 Concise Oxford Dictionary definition of “fair”
JB/4 Public information document produced by Bee Bee Developments Ltd “Wellingborough North Expansion Plans”
JHB/1 Proof of evidence of Councillor Jim Bass
MLH/1 Proof of evidence of Martin Lawrence-Harris
MP/1 Statement of the Rev Melvyn Pereira, Vicar of Gleneagles
MP/2 Statement of the Rev Melvyn Pereira as delivered at the inquiry
RGCA/0 Papers regarding constitution of RGCA and authorisation of objection
RGCA/1 Statement of Richard Lovett, Chair of Redhill Grange Community Association
RGCA/2 A509 Isham to Wellingborough Improvement – Route 2.4
RGCA/3 A509 Isham to Wellingborough Improvement – Two Way AADT Traffic Flow Comparisons between Options
123 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
RGCA/4 Sewage capacity information from Anglian Water at Broadholme Sewage Treatment Works and housing figures on which it is based, plus housing trajectory information supplied by Mike Haybyrne of Wellingborough Borough Council
RGCA/5 Not used
RGCA/6 Copy letter of 19 December 2008 from Bowden Land on behalf of the Wellingborough Landowners Group together with copy statement made on behalf of RGCA at the Council meeting on 4 February 2009 at which the 2007 planning application for the appeal site was determined
RGCA/7 Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 4 February 2009
RGCA/8 Copy Press Release by the Secretary of State confirming funding to encourage community participation in planning
SLH/1 Proof of evidence of Shelley Lawrence-Harris
SS/1 Proof of evidence of Susan Suttle
SS/2 Sites and Monuments Map, Great Harrowden CP
SS/3 Photographs showing the state of a rural underpass
TT/1 Proof of evidence of Trevor Tippett
General Inquiry Documents
GEN/1 Note of the Pre Inquiry Meeting held on 17 April 2009
GEN/2 Inspector’s Initial Comments on Section 106 Obligation Document APP/0/2
GEN/3 Inspector’s Initial Comments on Conditions Documents APP/0/1 and LPA/0/2
GEN/4 Inspector’s Initial Comments on Section 106 Obligation Document APP/0/8
GEN/5 Inspector’s Revised Comments on Section 106 Obligation Document APP/0/8 (including the Council’s Deed)
GEN/6 Inspector’s Initial Proposals for Accompanied Site Visit
124 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
APPENDIX B - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Implementation Conditions
1. The applications for approval of all of the reserved matters in respect of Phase 1 (as defined by Parameter Plan H - Drawing Number BBD008/017.01/J) shall be made no later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, and the development to which this permission relates in respect of Phase 1 shall commence before the later of:
(a) The expiration of a period of 5 years from the date of this permission; or
(b) The expiration of 2 years from the date of the final approval of the details of the last reserved matter given by the Local Planning Authority or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
Reason: In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The applications for approval of the reserved matters in respect of Phases 2 & 3 (as defined by Parameter Plans I & J - Drawing Numbers BBD008/017.02/J and BBD008/017.03/J) shall be made no later than the expiration of 10 years from the date of this permission, and the development to which this permission relates in respect of Phases 2 & 3 shall commence before the later of:
(a) The expiration of a period of 12 years from the date of this permission; or
(b) The expiration of 5 years from the date of the final approval of the details of the last reserved matter (for phases 2 & 3) given by the Local Planning Authority or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
Reason: In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2A Notwithstanding conditions 2 and 5A of this permission, no development shall commence within Phases 2 & 3 (as defined by Parameter Plans I & J - Drawing Numbers BBD008/017.02/J and BBD008/017.03/J) until development has commenced in Phase 1 pursuant to condition 1 of this permission.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and sustainable form of development and in accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
125 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
3. Notwithstanding condition 2 above, no dwellings within Phases 2 & 3 (as defined by Parameter Plans I & J - Drawing Numbers BBD008/017.02/J and BBD008/017.03/J) shall be occupied until the IWIMP road has been completed and brought into use.
Reason: To ensure the delivery and availability of infrastructure when required to cater for traffic generated by more than 1,500 residential units and to ensure that the safety and free flow of traffic on the trunk road network is not prejudiced by this development in accordance with Policies 2, 13 and 16 of the adopted North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.
4. Applications for detailed approval of the following matters (hereby referred to as the reserved matters) in relation to any phase of development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of development in that phase (save such preliminary work as the Local Planning Authority may approve in writing):
(a) the layout, scale and appearance of buildings;
(b) vehicle, cycle and foot access routes and parking;
(c) hard and soft landscaping including boundary treatments and details of street furniture and lighting;
(d) layout and design of public open space;
The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
4A Application for detailed approval of the following matters in relation to any phase of development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of development in relation to that phase:
(a) layout, design and specification of drainage infrastructure;
(b) detailed survey of existing ground levels, details of any proposed alterations to the existing ground levels, the final ground level of the development and the finished floor levels of the buildings; and
(c) waste management facilities strategy and waste audit, including arrangements for the provision of waste collection receptacles.
The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
126 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Reason: In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
5. No reserved matters application shall be submitted for development in relation to any phase of development unless a design code (including schedules of external facing materials for all the buildings) covering that application has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such design code to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval shall consist of guidance and coding relating to the following matters for that application:
• character area overview;
• public realm strategy;
• movement network including route hierarchy,
• street, building and block typologies;
• open spaces and landscape;
• environmental standards; and
• implementation.
The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved design code details.
Reason: To ensure that the development achieves the objectives set out in the Masterplan and to accord with Policies 13 and 16 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
Phasing Plan
5A No development shall commence on any phase or sub-phase until a phasing plan in respect of the phased implementation of the development in phases and/or sub-phases, which shall generally be in accordance with the principles set out in Parameter Plans H, I and J submitted with the application (Drawing. Nos. BBD008/017.01/J, BBD008/017.02/J and BBD008/017.03/J), have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In particular, the phasing plan for Phase 1 of the development shall:
(a) identify the nature, scale and extent of the infrastructure to be provided to serve the development within Phase 1;
(b) identify play and sports facilities, including formal and informal open space, to serve 1,500 dwellings within Phase 1, including the formal sports facilities adjacent to Wellingborough Grange Farm and the timing for its delivery;
(c) incorporate the central phase of Brook Park and the Harrowden Ridge Park central phase and the timing for its delivery;
127 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
(d) identify the extent of the neighbourhood centre to be associated with Phase 1 and timing for its delivery;
(e) identify the extent of the woodland planting to be associated with Phase 1 and the timing for its delivery including advance planting on the northern and eastern edges of Redhill Grange.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the phasing plan and programme so approved.
Reason: To ensure the phased and ordered delivery of the development to achieve the objectives set out in the Masterplan and to accord with Policies 13 and 16 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
Masterplan and Parameter Plans
6. Each reserved matters application shall substantially accord with the Planning Application Masterplan (drawing numbered BBD008/010BC) and the approved Design Codes and shall be accompanied by a written statement which demonstrates compliance.
Reason: To ensure that the reserved matter applications are in accordance with the Masterplan and relevant sub-area detailed design code/design brief and to accord with Policies 13 and 16 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
7. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out substantially in compliance with the Parameter Plans contained in the Planning Application, namely Drawing Nos. BBD008/043, 010/BC, 012/AB, 014/U, 015/T, 016/P, 029/F, 017.01/J, 017.02/J and 017.03/J, and save as is necessary to secure compliance with the conditions on this permission, no variation shall be made without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority which approval will not be given if in the reasonable opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed variation creates new environmental impacts which exceed the range or scale of those assessed and measured in the Environmental Statement (including the further information submitted in October 2008) and which the Local Planning Authority considers may require further or additional mitigation measures.
Reason: In order that the development is carried out in accordance with any necessary mitigation for the purposes of the Environmental Impact Assessment and in order that the development complies with the Approved Plans and accords with Policies 13 and 16 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
8. The total number of C3 dwelling units within the development shall be limited to 3,000. Of that total, 1,500 units shall be limited to Phase 1, 700 units for Phase 2 and 800 units for Phase 3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, sub-phases of the development may be carried out subject to the limits specified for each phase both individually and cumulatively not being exceeded.
128 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Reason: To ensure that the safety and free flow of traffic on the trunk road network is not prejudiced by this development and to accord with Policies 2, 13 and 16 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
9. Prior to the commencement of the development of any phase, sub- phase or infrastructure element in connection with any phase (save for such preliminary works as the Local Planning Authority may approve in writing), all existing public rights of way affected by the development of that phase, sub-phase or infrastructure element shall be protected and/or diverted in accordance with statutory procedures and a scheme which shall previously have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such measures shall remain in place for the duration of the construction in that phase, sub-phase or infrastructure element and thereafter, any such route shall be returned to its original state or such state as shall be approved in writing in advance by the Local Planning Authority, and made available for public use once the works which immediately affect them have been completed.
Reason: In the interest of sustainability and to accord with Policies 4, 13 and 16 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
Landscaping
10. Prior to the commencement of any development (save for such preliminary works as the Local Planning Authority may approve in writing), a structural landscape scheme shall be provided in accordance with an updated version of the Landscape Strategy (September 2008) and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A detailed scheme for each element shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme(s) shall be implemented in the first planting season immediately following the completion of the relevant phase or sub- phase or within any longer period as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. If, within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting, any tree or plant is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies, another of the same species and size shall be planted at the same place in the next available planting season, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation. For the purposes of this condition a planting season shall be the period from the end of October to the end of February.
Reason: To enhance the appearance of the proposed development, to accord with Policies 5, 13 and 16 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
11. Prior to the commencement of any development within any phase (save for such preliminary works as the Local Planning Authority may approve in writing), a detailed plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority indicating the position of existing landscape features including trees, large shrubs and hedges both within that phase and overhanging the phase boundary. Trees are to be assessed for their wildlife value and potential for providing bat roosts. The extent of the canopy shall be
129 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
plotted accurately and the plan shall specify protective measures to existing trees and hedges to be retained on that part of the phase in accordance with British Standard 5837. The plan shall also indicate the proposed route of all underground services and measures to be taken to ensure that root damage is avoided. The approved measures shall be implemented prior to development of the phase area or infrastructure element to which it relates (save for such preliminary works as the Local Planning Authority may approve in writing) and retained until the completion of the development. Any land so enclosed shall be kept clear of all materials, machinery and temporary buildings at all times.
Reason: To protect existing landscape features and wildlife in accordance with Policies 5, 13 and 16 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
12. A Landscape Management Plan, including phasing and implementation strategy, management responsibilities and maintenance arrangements for all landscape areas, other than privately owned domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority as part of the reserved matters submission in accordance with Conditions 4 and 10. The Landscape Management Plan shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To ensure that failing plants are replaced within the establishment period, to accord with Policies 5, 13 and 16 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
Archaeology
13. The development of each phase, sub-phase or infrastructure element hereby permitted shall not commence until a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (including site-based archaeological survey, trial fieldworks to evaluate the archaeological potential of the sub-area and any work necessary to preserve remains in situ and/or by record), or watching brief, as appropriate, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for that phase, sub-phase or infrastructure element. The relevant works shall only take place in accordance with the detailed scheme or brief pursuant to this condition.
Reason: To ensure that potential archaeological remains are recorded, in accordance with Policies 13 and 16 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
Noise Mitigation
14. The development of each phase or sub-phase shall not commence (save for such preliminary works as the Local Planning Authority may approve in writing) until a scheme for noise mitigation measures in relation to that phase or sub-phase, in accordance with the Environmental Statement, to protect future occupiers from the industrial operations within Finedon Road Industrial Estate has been
130 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved mitigation measures shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of any building in that phase or sub-phase.
Reason: In the interest of residential amenity and to accord with Policies 13 and 16 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
Construction Management
15. No development of any phase or sub-phase shall take place until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Construction Management Plan shall include and specify the provision to be made for the following:
(i) Dust mitigation measures during the construction period;
(ii) Control of noise emanating from the site during the construction period;
(iii) Hours of construction work for the development;
(iv) Contractors’ compounds and other storage arrangements;
(v) Enclosure of phase or sub-phase development sites;
(vi) Provision for all site operatives, visitors and construction vehicles loading, off loading, parking and turning within the site during the construction period;
(vii) Arrangements during the construction period to minimise the deposit of mud and other similar debris on the adjacent public highways;
(viii) Routing agreement for construction traffic.
The construction of the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan.
Reason: In the interest of residential amenity and to accord with Policies 13 and 16 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
Lighting
16. Prior to the commencement of development on any phase or infrastructure element (save for such preliminary works as the Local Planning Authority may approve in writing), a lighting strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved strategy.
Reason: For the avoidance of unnecessary light pollution and to accord with Policies 13 and 16 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
131 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Drainage/contamination
17. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced (save for such preliminary works as the Local Planning Authority may approve in writing) until such time as a scheme to provide detailed suitable modelling of the watercourse through the site (Harrowden Brook) to the limits of the site boundaries (to allow the fluvial flood risk contours from the modelled 1 in 100 year and 1 in 1,000 year flood events to be mapped), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme or within any other period as may subsequently be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To inform the location of any proposed development on the site and thus prevent an increase in flood risk, in accordance with Policies 13 and 16 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
18. Prior to the commencement of any development (save for such preliminary works as the Local Planning Authority may approve in writing), a Stage 2 Flood Risk Assessment shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme or within any other period as may subsequently be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To prevent the increase in flood risk in accordance with Policies 13 and 16 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
19. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 94, 98 and 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991, no development shall commence (save for such preliminary works as the Local Planning Authority may approve in writing) until details of a scheme, including phasing, for the provision of mains foul water drainage on and off site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwellings shall be occupied until the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: To prevent flooding, pollution and detriment to public amenity through provision of suitable water infrastructure, in accordance with Policies 13 and 16 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
20. Prior to the commencement of the development of any phase or sub- phase, a scheme for the disposal of surface water from that phase or sub-phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall adopt sustainable drainage principles in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems set out in Appendix F of PPS25 and shall not result in an increase in the rate and/or volume of surface water discharge to the local land drainage system. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme(s).
132 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Reason: To prevent flooding, pollution and detriment to public amenity through provision of suitable water infrastructure, in accordance with Policies 13 and 16 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
21. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved amendment to the remediation strategy.
Reason: To protect controlled waters in accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
Sustainable Homes, Buildings and Energy
22. In accordance with the submitted development phasing plan, residential units delivered between 2008-2012 shall achieve as a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes (“CSH”) Level 3; residential units delivered 2013-2015 shall achieve as a minimum CSH Level 4; and those delivered from 2016 onwards shall be achieve CSH Level 6, (or the equivalent national standard which replaces the Code for Sustainable Homes which is to be the assessment in force when the residential units concerned are registered for assessment purposes).
Reason: In the interests of sustainability and to ensure that the development provides an energy efficient design and to accord with adopted Policy 14 of the Core Spatial Strategy.
23. Non-residential buildings shall achieve a minimum of Building Research Establishment Environment Assessment Method (BREEAM) level "very good" (or the equivalent standard which replaces the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method which is to be the assessment in force when the Commercial Unit or Units concerned are registered for assessment purposes).
Reason: In the interests of sustainability and to ensure that the development provides an energy efficient design and to accord with adopted Policy 14 of the Core Spatial Strategy.
24. All reserved matters applications shall be accompanied by a Sustainability Statement / Assessment that demonstrates how environmental sustainability issues have been addressed during the design process and sets out the way in which the credits under relevant BREEAM Rating and relevant CSH Level will be achieved based on the actual design of the commercial units or residential units (as appropriate) in the particular development parcel. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved.
133 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Reason: In the interests of sustainability and to ensure that the development provides an energy efficient design and to accord with adopted Policy 14 of the Core Spatial Strategy.
25. Prior to the commencement of development (save for such preliminary works as the Local Planning Authority may approve in writing) a Low/Zero Carbon (LZC) Feasibility Study shall be carried out by an independent energy specialist to establish the most appropriate LZC energy source for the development in order achieve a target of at least 30% of the demand for energy. The feasibility study should cover as a minimum; energy generated by LZC source per year, payback, land use, noise, whole life cost impact of potential specification in terms of carbon emissions, any available grants, all technologies appropriate to the site, energy demand of the development, reasons for excluding other technologies and should include technical and economic viability assessment supporting actual target if less than 30%. The Study shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Study.
Reason: In the interests of sustainability and to ensure that the development provides an energy efficient design and to accord with adopted Policy 14 of the Core Spatial Strategy.
Use Restrictions
26. In relation to the Class A1 use of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2005 (as amended or any equivalent class within an Order revoking and or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) proposed on site pursuant to this permission, the cumulative / total gross floor area shall not exceed 2,600 square metres without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to safeguard the retail vitality and viability of the existing centres in accordance with Policy 12 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
27. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any other Order revoking and or re-enacting this Order with or without modification), any class A2, A3, A4 & A5 building / uses shall not be used for retail purposes falling within Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2005 (as amended or any equivalent class within an Order revoking and or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to safeguard the retail vitality and viability of the existing centres in accordance with Policy 12 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy.
134 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
Highways
28. Before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced, a detailed Development Phasing Plan for all highway and access works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Development Phasing Plan shall be in accordance with the Phasing Plan submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to Condition 5A of this permission. All highway and access works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Development Phasing Plan.
29. Notwithstanding the plans and details submitted, prior to the commencement of any phase or sub-phase of the development hereby permitted, details of the highway and access works necessary as part of that phase or sub-phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All highway and access works in that phase or sub-phase shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details and phased in accordance with the Development Phasing Plan.
30. Before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced, the applicant shall undertake public consultation with residents of Redhill Grange concerning any alterations to the existing access arrangements or creation of a new access or accesses to the estate at Redhill Grange. The results of the consultation shall be considered by the applicant and where appropriate taken account of in the subsequent detailed reserved matters application submissions pursuant to this permission.
31. Notwithstanding the plans submitted, all roads, footpaths, cycleways and verges within the development and linking to it shall be designed and constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall accord with the standards contained within the Northamptonshire County Council document ‘Place and Movement Guide’ and be supported by a Quality Audit.
32. Before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced, a Walking and Cycling Audit shall be submitted to and approved in writing by Local Planning Authority. No development shall be commenced until details of the Walking and Cycling Measures arising from the Audit, which for the avoidance of doubt shall include measures such as dropped kerbs, tactile paving and controlled pedestrian/cycle crossing(s) and signage to be carried out within the public highway that reasonably relate to the proposed development along with a programme of delivery, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such Walking and Cycling Measures shall be carried out in accordance with the approved programme of delivery.
Reason for 28-32 inclusive: In the interests of highway safety and improving accessibility in accordance with Policies 4, 13 and 16 of the
135 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
adopted North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Policy T6 of the Wellingborough Local Plan.
136 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
APPENDIX C - LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT
AMR The Wellingborough Council Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 AOD Above Ordnance Datum ATLAS Advisory Team for Large Applications BAP Biodiversity Action Plan Bee Bee Bee Bee Developments Ltd BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method CABE The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment CIF Community Infrastructure Fund CSH Code for Sustainable Homes CSS The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy DfT Department for Transport ES Environmental Statement FLAG Furnace Lane Action Group GAF Growth Area Funding HUDU Healthy Urban Development Unit IWIMP The Isham-Wellingborough Road Improvement scheme JPU The North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit LP The Wellingborough Local Plan LZC Low/Zero Carbon MK/SM The Milton Keynes and South Midlands area MK/SMSRS The Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub Regional Strategy NNDC The North Northamptonshire Development Corporation PIM Pre Inquiry Meeting RFA Regional Funding Allocation RSS The East Midlands Regional Plan SUE Sustainable Urban Extension SCG Statement of Common Ground SP The Northamptonshire County Structure Plan SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance The Appellants Northants LLP The Council The Borough Council of Wellingborough
137 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
The County Northamptonshire County Council Council The EIA The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Regulations Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 The HA The Highways Agency WEAST The planned Wellingborough East Sustainable Urban Extension WLP The Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan
138