Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 20 - 22 January 2015 Site visit made on 19 January 2015 by R Schofield BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 24 February 2015 Appeal Ref: APP/Q3305/A/14/2224843 Land at Green Pits Lane, Nunney, Somerset BA11 • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by BDW Trading Limited against the decision of Mendip District Council. • The application Ref 2014/0198/OTS, dated 7 February 2014, was refused by notice dated 27 August 2014. • The development proposed is outline planning permission for the erection of up to 100 no. dwellings, vehicular access from Glebelands, highways improvements, public open space, drainage and associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The application was made in outline with all matters reserved, other than access, for later consideration. In advance of the determination of the application, revised plans were submitted that changed the location of the vehicular access point, moving it to Green Pits Lane, along with changes to the pedestrian access. These were available for public consideration. Thus, notwithstanding the description of development in the header above, which is taken from the application form, I have considered the appeal on the basis of the revised plans. 3. Since the Council issued its decision notice, it adopted the Mendip Local Plan Part 1 (the Part 1 Plan) in December 2014. Following the close of the Inquiry I was made aware of a High Court challenge, albeit not made by the appellant, over the Council’s decision to adopt the Part 1 Plan. This challenge includes consideration of the Part 1 Plan’s overall housing requirement, which was not a matter in dispute between the parties to this appeal. 4. The parties were given the opportunity to comment upon the High Court challenge and I have taken their respective views into consideration. However, until such time as any legal judgment to the contrary is reached on this matter, I consider that the Part 1 Plan remains the up-to-date development plan for the District and have determined the appeal accordingly. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/Q3305/A/14/2224843 Main Issues 5. At the Inquiry, following the submission of a completed S106 agreement by the appellant, the Council decided not to pursue its reason for refusal related to the lack of submission of such an agreement. Thus, the main issues are: • the District’s housing land supply position and its policy implications; • whether, having regard to the requirements of the development plan and national policy, the level of development proposed would be located where the need to travel would be minimised and where services, facilities and employment would be accessible from the site by a range of modes of transport other than the private car; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether, having regard to the benefits and disbenefits of the proposal, it would represent a sustainable form of development. In the interests of clarity, my conclusion on the final Main Issue is found in my overall conclusion to this decision. Reasons Housing Land Supply and policy implications 6. The Part 1 Plan runs from 2006 to 2029 and sets out a housing requirement of 9635 dwellings for this period. There are four areas of dispute between the parties with regard to whether or not the Council is able to demonstrate a five- year supply of deliverable housing land against the undisputed housing requirement and I deal with them below. The appellant agreed that, other than data in relation to housing completions for 2013/14, no new evidence was being presented beyond that which was before the Part 1 Plan Inspector and on which he reported in October 2014. The appellant also agreed that although reference was made in evidence to market signals and affordable housing provision, this was purely contextual information and no reliance was placed upon these factors in support of their case. i) ‘Historic’ oversupply of housing 7. The housing requirement set out in the Part 1 Plan is derived from two sources. That from 2006/07 to 2010/11, giving a target of 415 dwellings per annum, is as set out in the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). That from 2011/12 to 2028/29, giving a target of 420 dwellings per annum, is derived from the Council’s Objective Assessment of Need (OAN) for housing. 8. The 2006/07 to 2010/11 figure is not derived from an OAN and the Planning Practice Guidance (the Guidance) states that it should be borne in mind that evidence which dates back several years, such as that drawn from revoked regional strategies, may not adequately reflect current needs. 1 Nonetheless, the Guidance goes on to make it clear that in assessing an OAN (i.e. the period 2011/12 to 2028/29) consideration can be given to evidence that the Council has delivered over and above its housing need in previous years. 2 In addition, 1 Ibid 2 Ibid ID 3 -036-20140306 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/Q3305/A/14/2224843 although case law 3 has established that there is no need for any shortfall against RSS targets to be added to up-to-date assessments of housing need, it does not automatically follow from this that such a principle must apply to an oversupply. Nor was any ruling in law that states so drawn to my attention. 9. Paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states at bullet two that local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements. This does not state that the whole of the ‘requirement’ should be based upon the OAN and, as agreed between the parties, the Part 1 Plan identifies a housing requirement for the whole plan period. I consider that it is this full period, with its adopted requirement, rather than solely that part of it based upon the OAN, against which demonstration of a five-year supply should be judged. 10. Consequently, in the absence of any new evidence on this matter, I see no reason to depart from the view of the Local Plan Inspector who reached, as the appellant acknowledged (albeit disagreeing with it), a reasonable conclusion that the Council could judge its past performance in delivering housing against the Draft RSS target 4. As such, I also consider it to be reasonable to take the oversupply against the 2006/07 to 2010/11 annualised figures into account when assessing the delivery of housing in the District to date. Against the 2006/07 to 2010/11 requirement the Council can, therefore, demonstrate an oversupply, which, when rolled into the completions figure for 2011/12 to 2013/14, gives an oversupply of dwellings against the totality of the average annual targets for the plan period 2006/07 to 2013/14. ii) A 5% or 20% Buffer 11. The Framework, at paragraph 47, bullet two, states that local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements, with an additional buffer of 5% moved forward from later in the plan period. This buffer should be increased to 20% where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing. 12. The greatest period of completions data presented to me was that stretching from 1992/93 to 2013/14. Looked at over this time period, years of under delivery are balanced with those of oversupply. There is also an oversupply of housing against the total delivery target. Consequently, there is nothing in this data range that would lead me to the conclusion that the Council has persistently under delivered against its housing requirements. 13. From 2011/12 to 2013/14, the OAN period of the Part 1 Plan housing requirement, there has been a three-year run of under delivery against the annual average. If a five-year period is looked at, to 2013/14, the annual average is missed on four of these years. However, in line with advice in the Guidance 5, which indicates that it is best to take a longer term view, as this is likely to take account of the peaks and troughs of the housing market cycle, I do not consider five years, let alone three years, to be a sufficient period of time over which to judge delivery. Looked at over a period of 10 years 3 Zurich Assurance v Winchester City Council and South Downs National Park [2014] EWHC 758 (Admin) 4 Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 Inspector’s Report 2 October 2014 paragraph 120 5 Planning Practice Guidance Reference ID: 3-036-20140306 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/Q3305/A/14/2224843 (2004/05 to 2013/14), years of under delivery are again balanced with those of oversupply and a surplus was achieved. 14. There is nothing in the Framework or Guidance to suggest that it is only appropriate to assess delivery against the OAN rather than the historic housing requirement for a given area. Indeed, case law 6 indicates that this is a matter of judgment for the decision maker, who may or may not take the figures in a previous plan into account as a measure of what the housing requirement was in order to assess whether there has been a persistent under delivery of housing.