Outline Planning Applica Development of Land Off

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

Outline planning application for residential development of land off Long Lane (land south of Chapel -en-le-Frith High School) , Chapel-en-lele -Frith

Client: Bank Hall Drive Developments

Our Ref: ROB390/2 Document Date: January 2015

CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 3 2. The Proposal ...... 5 3. Site and Surroundings ...... 6 4. Policy and Legislative Framework ...... 7 5. Assessment ...... 42 6. Conclusions ...... 62

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This outline planning application is submitted by Knights on behalf of Bank Hall Drive Developments for around 250 dwellings. The site is located to the west of Long Lane (and west of the railway line) and to the south of Chapel-en-le-Frith High School; see the accompanying site location plan (drawing number ROB390/2-001).

1.2 This planning application is submitted in outline form, with all matters reserved for subsequent approval, however an indicative masterplan accompanies the planning application to demonstrate layout principles. In addition, an access appraisal has been prepared by SCP (transport consultants) to demonstrate that safe and suitable points of access can be achieved in a variety of locations around the site.

1.3 The application red edge covers the land under the control of the applicant only. The supporting information by SCP demonstrates that access can be achievable, and as such, should the council be minded to grant planning permission, Grampian conditions should be attached to the decision notice in order to secure the appropriate access. It should be noted here on this specific point that the test of the Framework is whether or not a site is suitable, available and achievable. In this case, the proposal demonstrates that access is achievable. The site is otherwise considered to be suitable and available for development, as evidenced in the SHLAA and Landscape Impact Assessment, evidence documents for which have been submitted with the emerging High Peak Local Plan, which is currently subject to examination in public. The merits of the proposal will be set out in more detail later on in this statement.

1.4 This planning application has been informed by pre-application discussions with High Peak Borough Council officers, as well as a pre-application community engagement exercise.

1.5 A request for a formal screening opinion under the 2010 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations was submitted to High Peak Borough Council dated 30/01/2015. The applicants concluded in the request for a screening opinion that the proposal would not comprise EIA development. A response from High Peak Borough Council is awaited.

1.6 This planning submission includes the following documents: • Planning application forms • A site location plan by Knights LLP • An existing site survey by Survey Systems • A concept masterplan by MCK Architects (submitted for indicative purposes only) • A design and access statement by Knights LLP • A phase 1 ground investigation by GRM • A phase 1 ecology survey by Rachel Hacking Ecology • An access appraisal by SCP • A landscape framework and masterplan by Tyler Grange • A landscape and visual impact assessment by Tyler Grange • A statement of community engagement by MMB Studios

• Section 106 draft heads of terms • A flood risk assessment and SUDS strategy by Waterco • An arboricultural implications study by Tyler Grange • Affordable housing statement by Knights LLP • A heritage statement by Knights LLP

1.7 This statement assesses the development plan and its conformity with the Framework, and assesses whether the proposed development would accord with the development plan and whether or not the proposal would comprise sustainable development.

1.8 In addition, this statement will assess the proposed development against the emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan for Chapel-en-le-Frith, which has been submitted for examination. The council has appointed an Inspector to conduct the examination, however at the time of writing, the date of the start of the examination has yet to be confirmed. This statement will demonstrate that the proposals do not conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan.

1.9 This statement demonstrates that the proposal would comprise sustainable development, and that in accordance with Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, outline planning permission ought to be granted.

2. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 This proposal seeks outline planning permission for residential development with all matters reserved.

2.2 The indicative capacity of the site would be approximately 250 dwellings, and the development proposals would include public open space, sustainable urban drainage features and landscaping.

2.3 30% of the proposed dwellings would be for affordable housing, totalling a provision of 75 affordable homes at a split of 80% for affordable rent and 20% for shared ownership. The proposals would also include 25 one and two bed retirement homes. The proposed indicative housing breakdown provision on this site would be as follows: • 16 1-bed affordable homes • 37 2-bed affordable homes • 22 3-bed affordable homes • 25 1 and 2-bed retirement homes • 43 2-bed open market homes • 63 3-bed open market homes • 30 4-bed open market homes • 14 5-bed open market homes

2.4 One and two bedroom units can be provided in the form of flats within buildings of a maximum height of 3 storeys.

2.5 Further details regarding the design and layout of the proposals are provided within the supporting design and access statement.

3. SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

3.1 The planning application seeks outline planning consent for residential development of approximately 250 dwellings on land off Long Lane, Chapel-en-le-Frith. Chapel-en-le-Frith is one of High Peak’s principal towns along with Glossop and Buxton.

3.2 The site is located to the west of Long Lane and west of the existing mineral railway line, and south of Chapel-en-le-Frith High School.

3.3 Topographically, the site sits on the valley floor and gently slopes east to west from approximately 237m AOD (Above Ordnance Datum) to 229m AOD. The site is overlooked by steeply rising ground at Eccles Pike, Ladder Hill, Castle Naze and Cow Low which offer wide panoramic views of the valley landscape.

3.4 The site is located on the south-western settlement edge of Chapel-en-le-Frith and immediately adjacent to Chapel-en-le-Frith High School. It occupies part of a transitional landscape between Chapel-en-le-Frith and the wider pastoral farmland to the south and west. It is influenced by adjacent residential development to the north and east, and the proximity of the railway embankment to the immediate east. The surrounding framework of vegetation provides some degree of enclosure to the site, which when coupled with the proximity to existing built form at the settlement edge gives it ‘settlement fringe’ characteristics with the Open Countryside better represented within the rolling pastoral landscape located to the south-west of the site.

4. POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

4.1 In accordance with Section 38(6) all planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This legislative test is re-affirmed at paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”).

4.2 Of all material considerations, there can be no dispute that the Framework is the most important material consideration. Paragraph 214 and 215 of Annex 1 of the Framework states that from 12 months from the date of publication (of the Framework) decision makers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 (in accordance with the 2004 Act). In other cases and following this 12 month period due weight should be given to relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework.

4.3 It is reiterated at this point that paragraph 14 of the Framework requires that where relevant policies are out of date, that planning permission be granted subject to the two criteria in paragraph 14.

4.4 The new policy provision therefore requires a fundamental re-assessment of the Section 38(6) statutory approach to the Development Plan when its policies are out of date. It is also noteworthy that the saving letter (attached at Appendix 1 ) itself warns that the saved policies may need to be re-visited in the light of more recent policy.

4.5 Relevant “saved” local plan policies in this case are listed below: • GD2 • GD4 • GD5 • GD6 • OC1 • OC4 • OC10 • BC1 • H1 • H11

4.6 In this case, OC1 seeks to restrict development in the countryside beyond the built up area boundaries to those essential to the rural economy and GD4 seeks good design that will be appropriate to the character of the area and to prevent any undue detrimental effect on the visual qualities of the locality or the wider landscape.

4.7 Given that there is an absence of a 5YHLS in High Peak the relationship between housing delivery and the successful operation of OC1 is relevant. As such, Local Plan Policy H1 will also need to be examined.

4.8 Having regard to the process set out in paragraph 14 of the Framework, the following matters need to be examined:

1. Are policies of the development plan out of date? 2. If policies are out of date, are there any specific policies in the Framework which indicate that development should be restricted? 3. Are there any adverse impacts which significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits?

4.9 With regard to the development plan, this section addressed the issue highlighted under question 1. Questions 2 and 3 are addressed in section 7 of this statement.

4.10 In order to examine question 1, this issue is subdivided into four parts which examine whether development plan policies are out of date, as follows: (a) numerically (b) by reason of passage of time (c) because of more recent guidance (d) because there is no 5 year housing land supply

4.11 With regard to the relationship between policies H1 and OC1, Policy H1 is a housing constraint policy which restricts the supply of housing on greenfield land, stating that the residential development of greenfield land will not be permitted except under policies outlined elsewhere in the Plan.

4.12 With regard to the overall housing supply the Local Plan states that where an adequate supply of housing exists within a sub area to meet the structure plan housing provision, new residential development will only be permitted where it falls within certain exceptions.

4.13 The saving direction letter reached the conclusion that H1 conflicted with PPS3 at the time. This policy has a knock-on effect because OC1, which controls countryside development, defines countryside by reference to this test: “the countryside will cover all land beyond the built up area boundaries defined in the proposals map, including the green belt and Special Landscape Area”.

4.14 The local plan deliberately set the built up area boundaries so to limit development opportunities to sites within the built up area boundaries to meet the development needs of the area for the plan period up to 2011 in accordance with the old PPG3. By way of practical illustration of this, in the immediate vicinity of the site is the built up area boundary.

4.15 Policy H1 therefore has a direct effect on the ability to bring forward development on the periphery of towns such as Buxton which OC1 treats as countryside. If there is no available (and deliverable) land within the built up area, the periphery of a large town such as Buxton is the appropriate next port of call, subject to meeting the relevant tests set out at paragraph 14 of the Framework.

4.16 A recent High Court Judgement between Cotswold District Council and the Secretary of State 1 (contained at Appendix 2) stated at paragraph 16 of the judgement that policy 19 of the Local Plan restricted housing development, including housing development, outside of settlement boundaries. Paragraph 72 of the High Court Judgement confirmed that such a policy is a policy relating to the supply of housing, as it seeks to restrict development, including housing. As such, Policy OC1 is considered to be out of date. The Inspector, when considering the recent cases in Glossop, agreed that policy OC1 was out of date on this basis.

4.17 With regard to H1 and its relationship with OC1, it is also important to consider the 5 year housing land supply (5YHLS), given that paragraphs 47-49 of the Framework states that where there is an absence of a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land, housing policies will be considered to be out of date.

4.18 Policy H1 addressed the housing needs identified in the Derbyshire Structure Plan. These housing requirements were successively replaced by the East Midlands Regional Strategy 2005 (making provision for 250 dwellings per annum) and the 2009 RSS (making provision for 300 dwellings per annum), the latter of which was back dated to a 2006 start date.

4.19 The LPA should note that the Local Plan and Policy H1 were only intended to deliver housing provision for the period up to 2011. We are now past the date where we can look at the local plan for plan-led housing provision. In addition, H1 is out of date by reason of subsequent policy changes. But for the saving letter, all of the local plan policies would be gone and therefore “absent” in terms of paragraph 14. It is therefore, important to read the saving letter carefully. The LPA was informed 5 years ago to make swift progress in adopting a new development plan. This process has still yet to be completed – the new local plan is not expected to be adopted until later this year, if it is found to be sound by the Inspector. This has been confirmed at a recent council meeting, the minutes of which are contained at Appendix 3. In addition, at the same time, the LPA was also being told that policy H1 was out of date.

4.20 With regard to the 5YHLS, the most up to date position has been provided by the council within documents submitted to the Inspector who is conducting the Local Plan examination

4.21 The information provided states that between 2006 and 31 March 2013, 1729 dwellings have been delivered across the High Peak. Over the same 7 year period, 1800 dwellings should have been delivered at 300 dwellings per annum as required by the RSS up to 2011 and 360 dwellings per annum from 2011 in accordance with the proposed housing figures contained within the emerging Local Plan. Table 1 below illustrates housing delivery across the High Peak during this time:

Monitoring Year Housing Delivered Actual Requirement Over /Under Delivery 2006 – 2007 599 300 299

1 Cotswold District Council v Secretary of State for Community and Local Government [2013] EWHC 3719 (Admin) (27 November 2013)

2007 – 2008 360 300 60 2008 – 2009 167 300 133 2009 – 2010 122 300 178 2010 – 2011 157 300 143 2011 – 2012 115 360 185 2012 - 2013 207 360 153 2013 - 2014 36 360 324 Total 1765 2580 815

Table 1

4.22 As can be demonstrated above, there has been a significant under-delivery of housing in the High Peak over the past six years. The council will note that when Inspector Susan Holland considered the appeal at Manchester Road/Crossings Road, Chapel-en-le-Frith for 105 dwellings in 2012 (the appeal decision is contained at Appendix 4), the Inspector concluded that four years amounted to persistent under-delivery. As such, whilst it may be contended that such under-delivery might be related to the prevailing economic climate at the time, there is no allowance in the Framework for such circumstances. Local Planning Authorities must ensure that there is sufficient housing land available at all times to meet their requirements. As such, a 20% buffer must be added to the 5YHLS in High Peak to provide choice and competition in the market for land. Indeed, the council have confirmed in their recent submissions to the Local Plan Inspector 2.

4.23 As such, based upon the housing figures up to June 2014, Knights LLP assess the 5YHLS as follows, using the “Sedgefield” approach to calculating the 5YHLS, which is considered to be the most Framework compliant in terms of speeding up delivery and bringing forward the delivery of housing from later in the plan period:

RSS Annual Requirement up to 2011 300 Emerging Local Plan Requirement from 2011 360 Deliverable supply as of June 2014 2394

5 year requirement 1800 (360 x 5) Previous under delivery identified in table 1 815 New 5 year requirement 2615 (1800 + 815) New annual requirement 523 (2615 / 5) Annual 20% buffer 105 (20% of 523) Annual requirement with 20% buffer 628 (523 + 105) 5 year supply + 20% 3.81 (2394 / 628)

2 Council’s response to Inspector’s matter 2 questions published as document Q15 in the examination library.

Table 2

4.24 The Council accepts that it cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land as required by paragraphs 47-49 of the Framework. The housing trajectory submitted to the local plan examination confirms that delivery rates will not exceed 360 dwellings per annum until 2015/16 with the backlog of under-delivery not being addressed until at least 2018/2019, assuming that current economic improvement continues and remains stable.

4.25 At this point, it must be noted that in accordance with the Hunston Properties High Court Judgement 3 (contained at Appendix 5), that only the full objectively assessed needs can form the basis for decision taking until such a time that the Local Plan process came up with a constrained figure.

4.26 As such, the council’s assessment will need re-visiting. Up to date delivery figures are contained within the housing trajectory of the Draft Local Plan, and previous delivery rates are available on previous annual monitoring reports. Appendix 6 contains an assessment of the 5 year housing land supply, considering a range of figures based on the most up to date information available. This concludes that as of June 2014, the council can demonstrate the following:

• A 4.67 year supply (a shortfall of 168 dwellings) based upon revoked RSS figures of 300 dwellings per annum;

• A 3.81 year supply (a shortfall of 744 dwellings) based upon the Draft Local Plan figure of 360 dwellings per annum;

• A 3.22 year supply (a shortfall of 1320 dwellings) based upon the lower end of the objectively assessed range of 420 – 470 dwellings per annum identified in the SHMA;

• A 2.85 year supply (a shortfall of 1800 dwellings) based upon the higher end of the objectively assessed range of 420 – 270 dwellings per annum identified in the SHMA.

4.27 In light of the conclusions of the Hunston case, the decision maker must consider the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in High Peak (as required by paragraph 47) until such a time that the Draft Local Plan has passed the examination stage and has found that the adoption of any other constrained figure is sound. It is not expected that High Peak will have an adopted plan in place prior to the determination of this application.

4.28 It should be noted that no detailed assessment has been carried out as to the deliverability of individual sites identified in the schedule of sites provided that the council considers to count towards their 5 year housing land supply. It is likely that some of the sites that the council have identified will either not come forward at all, or will not be delivered as the rates that the council envisage. However, there is no doubt that whatever housing delivery figure is used to

3 City and District Council of St Albans v R (Hunston Properties Limited) and another [2013] EWCA Civ 1610 (12 December 2013)

calculate the supply that the council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land as required by the Framework. It is certainly the case that taking the Draft Local Plan figures, and indeed, the objectively assessed needs figures that the shortfall in deliverable housing land across High Peak is serious and highly significant.

4.29 Further to the above conclusions, at the time of writing, the High Peak Local Plan was subject to examination hearings. As part of the council’s submissions, an updated SHMA was submitted based on interim 2012 DCLG Projections. The council, however asked the Inspector to assess the plan based on the plan as submitted using the original SHMA based on 2011 projections. The full 2012 projections are expected to be published in February, after which, the council’s consultants will prepare an updated SHMA. As such, it is considered that the upper figure of the original SHMA should form the basis for the objectively assessed need until such time that that the updated 2012 projections have been published and robustly tested and assessed as part of an updated SHMA.

4.30 As such, there can be no doubt that in accordance with paragraph 49 of the Framework, that relevant policies for the supply of housing are out of date and that there is a presumption in favour of granting planning permission unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

4.31 The council will note that the 5 year housing land supply for High Peak was considered at two recent public inquiries in High Peak. These decisions relate to sites at Dinting Road and Shaw Lane, Glossop 4 (decision letter attached at Appendix 7), and land off North Road, Glossop 5 (decision letter attached at Appendix 8). Both decisions were issued by the same planning inspector, and considered early in 2014.

4.32 In terms of matters relating to housing land supply, the North Road decision at paragraph 16 acknowledges that allowing for a 20% buffer, that it cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites.

4.33 Paragraph 22 of the North Road decision also considered the Hunston Properties Case and objectively assessed needs from the emerging Local Plan process. The council also sought to increase the deliverable supply of available housing land though the inclusion of recent planning permissions and a windfall allowance. However, paragraph 26 of the decision confirms that even if new planning permissions are included, the council would be unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land, whether or not a constrained requirement or the full objectively assessed needs figure is used.

4.34 In any event, paragraph 27 confirms that the lack of a 5 year supply is common ground between the parties, and paragraph 28 confirms that there was no reason in that case to reach a definitive conclusion on the scale of the shortfall.

4 APP/H1033/A/13/2204114 published on 12 June 2014 5 APP/H1033/A/13/2205644 published on 12 June 2014

4.35 The Dinting Road and Shaw Lane decision also confirms that policies H1 and OC1 are out of date, and at paragraph 14, that the council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land.

4.36 In both of the above cases, the Inspector concluded that any environmental harm that would arise would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

4.37 The decision maker will note in this case that the site is not located within the Green Belt, Special Landscape Area, AONB, or National Park; nor is the site protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives, nor is the site designated as a SSSI, or Local Green Space. As such, there are no specific policies that apply to this site that suggest that development should be restricted.

4.38 The above clearly demonstrates that delivery is still a significant problem in the High Peak. This clearly demonstrates a lack of available and viable sites to deliver development, and more must be brought forward in order to ensure delivery and choice and competition in the market for land in accordance with the Framework.

4.39 It is worthy to note that pre-2009 that there was a moratorium in the Glossopdale and Central Sub Areas, and otherwise, pre-NPPF, housing policies were fairly restrictive. As such, notwithstanding an upturn in planning permissions for housing sites post-NPPF and notwithstanding the recession, delivery in recent years is as much a reflection of a combination of previous restrictive planning policies and a lack planning permissions (developers could not develop sites if they could not get planning permission) as well as the recession. An upturn in planning permissions from 2012 going forward should result in more housing delivery, however a continuous supply of sites with planning permission need to keep coming forward if the LPA is to meet its objectively assessed housing needs.

4.40 In light of the above assessment, it can be demonstrated that High Peak Borough Council still cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply. The current 5YHLS position of 2.85 years with a 20% buffer equates to a housing shortfall of 1800 using the upper range of the identified objectively assessed needs. As such, Local Plan Policy H1 is out of date. Because H1 is out of date, the LPA no longer has the ability to deliver housing on available land within the built up area boundary. If there is no available land within the built up area boundary to satisfy a deficient 5YHLS, the periphery of a large town such as Chapel-en-le-Frith (which is a sustainable location and a market town identified at the top of the settlement hierarchy in the emerging Local Plan) is the appropriate next port of call. The out of date nature of Policy H1 has a knock-on effect on the operation of policy OC1, which is land defined as open countryside beyond the built up area boundary established under Policy GD2. In conclusion, policy H1 is clearly out of date. The Inspector’s decision letters contained at Appendices 4, 7 and 8 confirm at that Local Plan policy H1 is out of date. With regard to OC1, the general countryside protection policies that this policy contains do conform with the requirements of the Framework in terms of protecting the countryside, however it is accepted that suitably located sites currently designated as open countryside are required to meet future housing requirements.

4.41 With regard to other policies contained within the Local Plan, policy GD4 is considered to be in general conformity with the Framework which seeks to secure high standards of design.

Other Material Considerations

The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework)

4.42 Paragraph 14 of the Framework carries a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay, and where the development plan is silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. For reasons explained above it is considered that the development plan in this case is out of date.

4.43 Paragraph 17 of the Framework sets out the Government’s core planning principles that underpin plan making and decision taking. There is no core principle that requires previously developed land to be developed before greenfield sites.

4.44 Paragraph 47 of the Framework seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing. To boost the supply of housing, the Framework states that LPAs should identify annually a supply of specific deliverable sites to provide 5 years worth of housing against their housing requirements. In addition LPAs should identify a 5% buffer to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. In cases where there has been a record of persistent under delivery, this buffer should be increased by 20%.

4.45 With regard to housing delivery, paragraph 49 of the Framework requires LPAs to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites at all times; Paragraph 49 states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply.

4.46 Paragraph 49 of the Framework states that in the event that the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, then relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date. As such, the decision maker should turn to paragraph 14 of the Framework. Paragraph 14 states that at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development . For decision-taking this means:

o Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and o Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless:

Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole; or Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

4.47 Paragraph 17 of the Framework (core planning principles) is clear in the sense that there is no requirement to develop brownfield sites first. In addition, the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land, nor can it demonstrate a sufficient supply of brownfield sites to meet its five year requirements. As such, the sustainable development principles throughout the Framework ought to be the key determining factors when considering the principle of development on the appeal site.

High Peak Local Plan Submission Version (Draft Local Plan) (April 2014)

4.48 The Draft Local Plan was published for consultation on 23 rd April 2014 for a 6 week period of consultation. This consultation was extended to 23 rd June following the publication of corrections relating to proposed policy H3. As referred to earlier, the applicant has submitted representations in response to the High Peak Local Plan consultation.

4.49 The council has been working on the preparation of an up to date Local Plan for a considerable length of time. The council initially sought to adopt a joint Core Strategy with Derbyshire Dales District Council, however the preparation of a joint Core Strategy was abandoned in 2012 in favour of preparing a single Local Plan for High Peak.

4.50 The consultation exercises undertaken by the council for both the joint Core Strategy and a single Local Plan are listed below: • November 2007 – Shaping the Future Consultation • March – May 2009 – Core Strategy Issues and Options Consultation • August – October 2009 – Growth Options Consultation • June – July 2010 – Draft Core Strategy Consultation • March 2011 – Community Conversations Consultations • September – October 2012 – Local Plan Options Consultation • February - April 2013 – Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation • December 2013 – February 2014 – High Peak Local Plan Additional Consultation • April – June 2014 – High Peak Local Plan Submission Version Consultation

4.51 The latest Local Development Scheme ( Appendix 10 ) anticipates that the Local Plan will be adopted in February 2015.

4.52 The council has attempted to support the above documents with the following evidence base documents:

• Affordable Housing Viability Assessment (January 2010)

• Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (March 2008) • Habitat Regulation Screening Assessment (March 2010) • Habitats Regulation Assessment (March 2014) • High Peak Local Plan Transport Study (Draft Issue 2 – April 2014) • High Peak Landscape Impact Assessment (January 2014) • Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study (May 2011) • Peak Sub Region Climate Change Study (July 2009) • Peak Sub Region Employment Land Review (August 2008) • Peak Sub Region Retail and Town Centre Study (February 2009) • High Peak and Staffordshire Moorlands Retail Study (October 2013) • Peak Sub Region Joint Housing Needs Survey Report (April 2007) • Strategic Housing Market Assessment (December 2008) • Strategic Housing Market Assessment and Housing Needs Study (April 2014) • Peak Sub Region Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 1 (September 2008) • High Peak Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 2 (April 2014) • High Peak Local Plan Viability Test Report (April 2014) • Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (June 2009) • Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment updated maps and list of sites (April 2014)

4.53 The plan at the time of writing is subject to examination in public by Inspector Micheal Moore. The examination hearings will conclude in early February. During the examination concerns were expressed by the Inspector regarding objectively assessed needs and the council’s approach to constraining the objectively assessed need to 360 dwellings per annum. It is not expected that the Inspector will publish his report prior to the determination of this application. However, given that the plan is subject to significant objection, with particular regard to housing policies, then it is considered that limited weight can be attached to the plan as submitted.

4.54 By way of background, the submitted version of the Local Plan under Policy S2 identifies Chapel-en-le-Frith as a Market Town. Market Towns are identified at the top of a hierarchy of settlement types in High Peak. Policy S2 states that the Market Towns will be the main focus for housing, employment and service growth.

4.55 Policy S3 of the Local Plan identifies a requirement to deliver 360 dwellings per annum over the plan period (7200 in total). OAN for High Peak in the April 2014 SHMA identified a need to deliver 420 – 470 dwellings per annum. In August 2014 an update was published to the SHMA based on 2012 Sub National Population Projections (SNPP). The April 2014 SHMA was based upon the 2011 CLG Projections. The August 2014 update identifies a need to deliver somewhere in the region of 280 – 420 dwellings per annum, depending upon different scenarios and policy approaches. The August update refers to 2012 CLG projections. However, at the recent examination hearings, these numbers were questioned, and further

work is expected to be undertaken after February 2015 when the updated 2012 CLG projections are published.

4.56 Of the 7200 dwellings proposed to be delivered over the plan period, 500 are proposed to be delivered in Cheshire East from 2020. The Cheshire East Plan has recently been subject to examination, which has now been suspended. The perceived flaws of the Cheshire East Plan are well documented, and will not be repeated here, however, it is important to note that no proposals were made in the Cheshire East Plan as to how and where the 500 figure would be delivered. It certainly was not clear as to how the 500 figure would relate to addressing the identified housing need for the High Peak Housing Market Area. This aspect of housing delivery also gave rise to significant concern and material objections during the High Peak Local Plan examination.

4.57 The submitted LP states under Policy S3 that 850 dwellings will be delivered in the Chapel- en-el-Frith Parish, 813 of which are identified as commitments, and 42 of which are proposed allocations in the NP.

4.58 Paragraph 4.110 of the proposed LP confirms that Chapel-en-le-Frith lies outside of the Green Belt and is surrounded by relatively flat countryside and has correspondingly fewer constraints for new development. It is also further from the nearby conurbations and has new and potential employment land with good transport links to the wider area and a range of services and facilities including a secondary school and healthcare facilities. In light of these considerations, Knights considers that Chapel-en-le-Frith should be accommodating more development.

4.59 On this point, it should be noted that the Chapel-en-le-Frith Parish is made up of the settlements of the market town of Chapel-en-le-Frith, and the villages of Dove Holes and Chinley, the latter two of which are defined separately as larger villages. Some of the commitments identified relate to large sites in Dove Holes and Chinley. As such, in order to conform with the overall spatial strategy set out in S2, Chapel-en-le-Frith, as a market town, should be allocated a higher amount of dwellings that should be delivered to meet the objectively assessed needs. Submissions on these points have been made to the Inspector at the examination hearings.

4.60 The Chapel NP under policy H1 states that land is allocated for a minimum of 454 new homes. The plan does not seem to advocate that no more housing will be accepted.

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) - 6 March 2014

4.61 Since the Council determined the previous planning application, the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) was published. The following sections of the NPPG are relevant to the determination of this application:

ID: 2a – Housing and economic development needs assessments

ID: 3 – Housing and economic land availability assessment

ID: 6 – Climate Change

ID: 7 – Flood risk and coastal change

ID: 8 – Natural environment

ID: 9 – Duty to co-operate

ID: 10 - Viability

ID: 11 – Strategic environmental assessment sustainability appraisal

ID: 12 – Local Plans

ID: 14 – Making an application

ID: 16 – Appeals

ID: 18a – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

ID: 21a – Use of planning conditions

ID: 21b – Determining a planning application

ID: 23b – Planning obligations

ID: 27 – Minerals

ID: 30 - Noise

ID: 32 – Air Quality

ID: 33 – Land affected by contamination

ID: 34 - Water supply, wastewater and water quality

ID: 37 – Open space, sports and recreation facilities, public rights of way and local green space

ID: 42 – Travel plans, transport assessments and statements in decision-taking

ID: 50 – Rural housing

ID: 53 – Health and wellbeing

Local Finance Considerations

4.62 Section 143 of Part 6 of the Localism Act states that local finance considerations, such as contributions from the Crown/ Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as a result of the proposed development are material considerations. Local finance considerations also include New Homes Bonus payments. Paragraph 17 of the appeal decision attached at Appendix 16 confirms that New Homes Bonus contributions are a material consideration.

The Chapel-en-le-Frith Neighbourhood Plan (Examination Version)

4.63 The neighbourhood plan (NP) examination version has recently undergone a 6 week consultation and has now been submitted to the council for examination. At the time of writing, the examination hearings have yet to take place. The plan has a base date of 2013.

Policy H1

4.64 Policy H1 states the “plan allocates land for a minimum of 454 new homes, where subject to meeting the requirements of the plan, as well as other relevant national and local planning requirements, planning permission will be granted for the approximate number of homes shown. The allocations include sites for which planning permission was granted in 2013:

4.65 Allocated sites were listed as follows:

• Federal Mogul – 164 homes

• Former Dorma site – 182 homes

• Pickford Meadow – 30 homes

• Par Road Factory – 12 homes

• Land at Long Lane – 66 Homes

4.66 The supporting text to the policy, the NP states that a sustainability appraisal of each site was carried out to assess the suitability of each site as objectively and rigorously as possible. The main criteria were:

• Within 15 minutes walk of a town or large village centre;

• Minimise impact on conservation and biodiversity;

• Minimise impact on the landscape.

Policy H2 – Housing Site Design Briefs

4.67 Planning applications should be accompanied by a design brief which may form part of the design and access statement accompanying the application. This should demonstrate how

the proposed development has taken account the design policies of the plan (H7, H8 and H9) and demonstrate how the development proposal reinforces the attractive character of the area.

Policy H4 – Housing Mix

4.68 On sites of 6 or more dwellings, applications must be accompanied by a statement demonstrating how the proposal meets the needs of current and future households in the NP area. Proposals should demonstrate an appropriate housing mix. Large areas of uniform house types and sizes will not be acceptable on any site.

Policy H5 – Housing Density

4.69 With the exception of town centre sites, housing should be developed at around 30 homes per hectare in areas outside of the National Park to reflect the existing density and to ensure the provision of adequate private and public open space.

Policy H6 – Affordable Housing

4.70 All proposals for 6 or more homes must provide affordable housing unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated. On medium (6-24 homes) brownfield sites, 20% of homes must be affordable; and on medium greenfield sites, no fewer than 33% of homes must be affordable, unless exceptional circumstances relating to financial viability can be clearly demonstrated.

4.71 On large brownfield sites of 25 or more homes, or on town centre sites, no fewer than 30% of new homes must be affordable unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated. On large greenfield sites (except those in town centres for accessible housing), no fewer than 50% of new homes must be affordable, unless exceptional circumstances relating to financial viability can be clearly demonstrated.

Policy H8 – High Quality Design

4.72 New development in the NP area must be of a high quality. It should seek to reflect and distinguish the attractive characteristics of Chapel-en-le-Frith and other settlements within the parish. Proposals must demonstrate how the plans meet this policy, with specific reference to the design criteria set out below:

• Integration of sites – new housing developments must be well connected both within the site and with the wider area. Developers must demonstrate how they have had regard to movement (vehicular, pedestrian and cycle);

• Forgotten elements – The following elements must be considered in the design process and integrated into the overall scheme – bin stores and recycling facilities; cycle stores; chimneys; meter boxes; lighting; flues and ventilation ducts; gutters and pipes; satellite dishes and telephone lines.

• Outdoor space – a private outdoor amenity space must be provided for all new dwellings.

• Car parking – car parking must meet minimum standards, as set out by Derbyshire County Council. In addition, frontages must not be entirely dedicated to car parking but should provide for appropriate and significant public and private open space and landscaping, reflective of the Parish’s character and countryside setting.

Policy H9 – Design Criteria

4.73 Policy H9 states that all development must demonstrate how it has taken into account the following:

• Sustainable development – new housing should achieve the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 as a minimum and, from 2016, should achive the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6; • Connections – Development should integrate into its surroundings by reinforcing existing connections and creating new ones; whilst also respecting existing buildings and land uses along the boundaries of the development site; • Facilities and services - Development should provide (or be close to/connected to) community facilities, such as shops, schools, workplaces, parks, play areas, pubs or cafes. • Public transport - Good access to public transport to help reduce car dependency and support public transport use. • Meeting local housing requirements - Development should provide a mix of housing types and tenures that suit local requirements. • Character - Development should seek to create a place with a locally inspired or otherwise distinctive character. • Working with the site and its context - Development should take advantage of existing topography, landscape features (including water courses), wildlife habitats, existing buildings, site orientation and microclimates. • Creating well defined streets and spaces - Buildings should be designed and positioned, with landscaping, to define and enhance streets and spaces. Buildings should be designed to turn street corners well. • Easy for people to find way around (legibility) - Development should be designed to make it easy for people to find their way around and to recognise distinctive places. • Streets for all - Streets should be designed in a way that encourages low vehicle speeds and allows the streets to function as social spaces. • Car parking - Resident and visitor parking should be sufficient and well integrated so that it does not dominate the street. • Public and private spaces - Public and private spaces should be clearly defined and designed to be attractive, well managed and safe. • External storage and amenity space - There should be adequate external storage space for bins and recycling facilities as well as for vehicles and cycles.

Policy C1 – The Chapel-en-le-Frith Special Landscape Area

(a) In order to complement the conservation-focussed policies both in the plan and as set out in the adopted Local Development plan for the nationally-valued landscape of the Peak District National Park the Chapel-en-le-Frith Parish Special Landscape Area’s distinctive landscape character and key features will be protected against inappropriate development and, where possible, enhanced for their environmental value and amenity use.

(b) Small developments or conversion, extension or replacement of existing buildings in the Chapel-en-le-Frith Parish Special Landscape Area will be permitted to support or enhance farming, farm diversification and rural businesses, for example, development of tourist, visitor, outdoor recreation or equestrian facilities. Such developments will be subject to the other policies of this Plan and other local and national policy. Housing development in the Chapel-en-le-Frith Parish Special Landscape Area will be limited to conversion, extension or replacement of an existing building or to a single new property as specified in Housing Policy H3. (c) Where development is acceptable in principle and does not conflict with the aims of conservation and enhancement, measures will be sought to integrate it into the landscape character of the area. Proposals for new development must demonstrate that they have taken into account :

• The landform and natural patterns of drainage; • The impact on access routes; • The extent and composition of trees and woodland; • The type and distribution of wildlife habitats; • The pattern and composition of field boundaries; • The characteristics of footpaths, local lanes and the Greenways Strategy for the

area ; • The relationship with neighbouring settlements and roads; • The presence and pattern of historic landscape features;

• The scale, layout, design and detailing of vernacular buildings 7 and other traditional man-made features, including dry stone walls and features of historical interest; • The need to minimise noise, light and other environmental pollution; • The need to minimise generated traffic; • Visual impact on the view from the historic town centre, settlements and surrounding hills.

(d) Existing features which are important to the local landscape character shall be retained, incorporated into development and protected during construction work.

Relevant Appeal Decisions and Locally Determined Planning Applications in High Peak

4.74 A number of recent appeal decisions (post publication of the National Planning Policy Framework) have been published in relation to large scale housing applications in High Peak. These appeal decisions deal with matters of housing land supply and sustainability.

APP/H1033/A/11/2159038 Land at Manchester Road/Crossings Road, Chapel-en-le- Frith, High Peak, Derbyshire SK23 9TP (16 August 2012)

4.75 The main issues in this appeal decision were the effects of the proposed development on housing land supply (and the consistency of the extant Local Plan with the Framework), prematurity, and impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

4.76 With regard to housing land supply, paragraph 14 of the appeal decision states that:

“The Council’s estimate of a 5.9-year housing land supply does not therefore accord with the provisions of the Framework, and moreover includes a windfall estimate which does not follow the Framework stipulation that an allowance for windfall sites in the 5-year supply should not include residential gardens and is consequently over-generous. Furthermore, the evidence for 2008-2011 taken from the AMR suggests a situation of persistent under-delivery in the terms of the Framework at para.47, which states that in such a case local planning authorities should increase the buffer [of 5%] to 20% (moved forward from later in the Plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. In these circumstances the housing land supply falls significantly short of what, under the Framework, is now required”.

4.77 With regard to the consistency of the extant Local Plan with the Framework, the Inspector concluded at paragraph 24 that:

“The level of restraint imposed by LP Policy H1 and its overwhelming emphasis upon brownfield sites are inconsistent with the provisions of the Framework. Though adopted in 2005, the Local Plan is not a ‘new-style’ development plan document (DPD) prepared in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. In these circumstances, LP Policy H1 is out of date, and very little weight can be given to it in the terms of para.215 of the Framework. Such weight as can be attributed to Policy H1 derives only from its combination with the Interim Housing Policy Statement which adapts Policy H1 to the housing figures contained in RSS (itself only temporary pending revocation). In conclusion, the proposed development is necessary in order to satisfy the requirement of the Framework, in measures set out at para.47 onwards, to boost significantly the supply of housing and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land, and to meet identified needs for affordable housing. In the light of prevailing planning policy and the balance of material

considerations, the proposal would not therefore have a materially harmful effect upon the housing supply, and would be largely of benefit”.

4.78 With regard to prematurity, paragraph 21 of the appeal decision states that:

“The ‘General Principles’ document at ¶18 states that where a DPD is at the consultation stage, with no early prospect of submission for examination, then refusal on prematurity grounds would seldom be justified because of the delay which this would impose in determining the future use of the land in question. In the current case, where the draft Core Strategy has been abandoned and there is as yet no emerging draft local plan, no justification for refusal on prematurity grounds can be drawn from ‘General Principles’” .

4.79 Paragraph 23 went on to state that:

“In this case there is no Core Strategy, nor any up-to-date local planning policy, either adopted or in late-stage emerging draft form to which substantial weight could be given, setting either the requirement or the location strategy for housing within the Borough”.

4.80 With regard to impact on the character and appearance of the countryside (the site was located adjacent to a special landscape area), the Inspector concluded at paragraph 31 that:

“the appeal proposal would in various ways outlined above, and initially, have an effect upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area which would be materially harmful and in conflict with LP Policy OC1. However, some elements of that harm would be temporary, and moderated through the imposition of conditions. On balance, the appeal proposal would not be harmful to the character of the area to the point at which the appeal proposal ought to be refused on that account: the harm being outweighed by the benefits to the housing supply”

APP/H1033/A/13/2189819 Forge Works, Forge Road, Chinley, Derbyshire SK23 6BW (29 May 2013)

4.81 The main issues in this appeal decision were impact on local highway safety and whether the proposal comprised sustainable development.

4.82 With regard to sustainable development, paragraph 31 of the appeal decision states that:

“The centre of the appeal site is located around 0.7km from shops within the centre of Chinley, around 1km from Chinley Railway Station and around 1.7km from Chinley Primary School, or around 0.9km via a proposed new footpath. I note the concerns of local residents and the Council relating to the quality of the pedestrian links from the appeal site to these services and facilities and the topography of the area. I also acknowledge that there are

existing parking problems at the railway station and within Chinley and that there have been reductions recently in the frequency of both bus and rail services in the area”.

4.83 Paragraph 32 then went on to state that the site is located “ on the edge of the settlement of Chinley, which benefits from a range of local services and facilities ”.

4.84 Paragraph 33 then went on to conclude that the proposed development “would represent a sustainable form of development. As such, it would accord with the guidance in The Framework”.

4.85 With regard to the supply of housing land and affordable housing, the Inspector acknowledged at paragraph 34 of the decision that both the appellant and the council “agree in the Statement of Common Ground that there is not currently a continuous 5 year supply of deliverable housing land in the Borough. Indeed, the Council accepted at the Inquiry that the housing land supply is currently around 2.8 years. Further, the main parties agree that there is a need for affordable homes across the Borough ……… As such, these matters carry significant weight in my consideration of this proposal”.

APP/H1033/A/13/2204114 – Land at Dinting Road and Shaw Lane, Glossop – 12 June 2014

4.86 This site is a greenfield site located on the edge of Glossop. With regard to planning policy, housing land supply and sustainability, the Inspector made the following conclusions (with emphasis added where necessary):

11. For the purposes of this appeal, the development plan comprises the saved policies of the High Peak Local Plan (‘LP’) adopted in 2005. Work is quite well advanced on the preparation of a new-style Local Plan, with consultation on Preferred Options having taken place in February 2013, and an additional round of consultation under way at the time of the Inquiry. But in view of current uncertainty around the final form of the new Local Plan, not least due to outstanding objections, little weight can be given to the emerging draft at this stage. However, it seems clear that the likely housing requirement of the new plan will require the allocation of land outside current built-up area boundaries.

12. The appeal site lies outside the defined settlement boundary of Hadfield. Under saved LP Policy OC1, it is classed as countryside. This policy is drafted in positive rather than restrictive terms, and confirms that permission will be granted for development needed for the rural economy. But the supporting text confirms the intention that other categories of development, including general housing, are not to be permitted. Moreover, saved Policy H1 includes a general presumption against housing development on ‘greenfield’ land. The appeal proposal would be contrary to these policies.

25 be seen as time-expired and the restriction they impose on the location of new housing as out of date. Policy OC1 provides a complementary and integral part of this restriction.

14. Furthermore, it is common ground that, allowing the 20% buffer for persistent past under- delivery advised by the NPPF, the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land. Although the precise level of shortfall is not fully agreed (at 3.7 or 3.8 years’ supply), the slight difference between the parties is of no great consequence for the appeal. In these circumstances, the NPPF advises that the housing supply policies of the development plan cannot be regarded as up-to-date. The restriction imposed by Policies GD2, OC1 and H1 in combination is relevant to the supply of housing.

15. For these reasons, I agree with the appellants that these policies must be regarded as out of date. The unmet need for additional housing becomes a consideration of substantial weight in the appeal. In accordance with NPPF guidance the appeal proposal must be assessed in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole.

16. Recognition of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is among the core planning principles of the NPPF. The implicit countryside protection objective of LP Policy OC1 is consistent with this principle, and the proposal’s particular effect on countryside character is therefore an important consideration to be taken into account in the assessment of the proposal, and has been identified as a main issue in the appeal. But the Council acknowledges that location within the policy allocation does not in itself preclude residential development. This has been reflected in appeal decisions and in the Council’s own resolutions to allow development on other sites.

17. The three specific criteria set out in Policy OC1 strictly apply only to the categories of rural economic development supported by the policy. But collectively they provide a reasonable proxy measure for potential adverse effects of development in a countryside location. The particular adverse effect cited in the Council’s reason for refusal of the application is the creation of an ‘unacceptable urbanising impact’.

33. The Council places considerable reliance on support by Inspectors for its consistent opposition over time to development of the appeal site. But the quoted decisions on planning appeals and reports of development plan inquiries are all now quite historic, with the most recent instance being the 1997 Local Plan Inquiry report. The earlier appeals would have been determined on the basis of the particular form of development then proposed and of the circumstances in effect at that time. The 1992 appeal sought permission for 134 units, which is a much higher density than currently proposed. Since the 1990s there have been considerable changes both to the physical context of the site, as described in the appellants’ evidence, and in the policy context, against which the current appeal must be determined. By far the most important of these are the priority given by the NPPF to securing a significant boost in the supply of housing, and the balance of considerations when an up-to- date supply is not in place.

34. However, it is noteworthy that while the 1997 Inspector endorsed previous views on the potential harmful effects of development of the site, and for those reasons opposed its allocation, he also rejected its inclusion within the Green Belt, because he envisaged that the land might be required to meet future development needs. This is very much the situation faced in the current appeal.

40. The Council’s greatest concern appears to relate to journeys on foot, with particular emphasis on the poor quality of many footpaths relied upon in the appellants’ calculations of distances. On the evidence of my visits to the area, I accept that many of these routes are far from ideal in terms of gradient, paving, lighting and personal safety. These paths are used at present and could be by future residents in appropriate circumstances, but their use would not be essential. I note that the vast majority of local destinations assessed under the Council’s ‘Safe and Suitable’ criteria would lie within 2000m of the centre of the site. In particular, I note that all schools and colleges would fall well within that limit, which is recommended by the Institution of Highways and Transportation. Whilst both larger supermarkets would lie just outside that limit, the site would have access to a local convenience store, public house and takeaways within 1000m, at Green Lane.

41. I conclude on this issue that the site, being at the edge of the urban area, would not have ideal access to some local facilities. But an overall assessment of its accessibility shows that it would have considerable advantages in terms of its closeness to the railway station and the availability of public transport options. The proposal would allow residents a choice of transport and would offer sustainable access to jobs and services. The submission of a full Travel Plan, which forms part of the S106 agreement, would allow measures to promote use of non-car modes of travel and detailed targets to be agreed. With that support there would be no significant conflict with LP Policy TR1 or with the guidance of the NPPF.

APP/H1033/A/13/2205644 – Land at North Road, Glossop – 12 June 2014

4.87 This site is another greenfield site located on the edge of Glossop. With regard to planning policy, housing land supply and sustainability, the Inspector made the following conclusions (with emphasis added where necessary):

15. Site G6 is one of a number of sites in the emerging plan outside the current built-up area boundaries of Glossop, as defined by Policy OC1 of the adopted LP. The development of such sites for housing is contrary in principle to Policy OC1 and to Policy H1, which includes a general presumption against housing development on ‘greenfield’ land.

16. However, the Council acknowledges that, allowing the 20% buffer for persistent past under-delivery advised by the NPPF, it cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites. In these circumstances, the NPPF advises that the housing supply policies of the LP cannot be considered as up to date. The restriction imposed by the above policies on the location of new housing is relevant to the supply of housing and the policies must now be regarded as out of date.

17. In accordance with NPPF guidance, the absence of a five-year supply of sites means that the appeal proposal must be assessed in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 14. This means that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole, or unless specific policies of the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

21. The Council’s original evidence to the Inquiry was of 3.8 years’ supply for the period October 2013–September 2018. Therefore, even at the outset, the need for additional housing to boost the supply in accordance with NPPF objectives was already a matter of significant weight in support of the appeal proposal. The Council’s enhanced estimate of its supply in later evidence to the Inquiry would still fall short of an adequate five-year supply based on the original requirement.

22. That requirement, for 300 dwellings per annum (‘dpa’), emanated from the now revoked Regional Strategy, which had provided the most recent fully tested and adopted requirement. However, the NPPF’s guidance that the housing requirement should be based on the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing has since been clarified by the High Court and Court of Appeal judgements in the Hunston case. The Council now accepts that the starting point for estimating its housing requirement should be the most recent objective assessment of need. The Additional Consultation on the emerging Local Plan had been informed by a Technical Note, which concluded that an objective assessment indicated a range of 416-455 dpa. By the close of the Inquiry the Council had updated this to 420-470 dpa.

23. The Court of Appeal Hunston judgement states that until such time as the Local Plan process has adopted a constrained housing figure, the full objectively assessed need should form the basis of the housing requirement6. Given the imminent submission and examination of the new Local Plan, I consider that to be the appropriate forum in which the correct requirement should be established. The Hunston judgement acknowledges the difficulty in attempting to shadow the Local Plan process in a S78 appeal such as this.

24. In response to the full objective assessment, the Additional Consultation proposes a constrained figure of 360 dpa, to reflect environmental factors including the extent the Green Belt, landscape character and infrastructure. The Council argued at the Inquiry that this figure could now be accepted as an appropriate requirement. The Hunston judgement goes on to allow that a decision on a S78 appeal could give weight to constraining factors, such as Green Belt. This is now reflected in the planning practice guidance, which advises that the weight to be given to full assessments of need should take into account the fact they have not yet been tested or moderated against relevant constraints.

28 allow weight to be given at this stage to the Council’s proposed constrained figure. However, the resulting lack of certainty is not critical to the outcome of the appeal.

26. The Council’s rebuttal evidence to the Inquiry sought to increase the deliverable supply to 2150 dwellings, by the addition of an allowance for future windfall sites, and the inclusion of sites granted permission since October 2013 and sites recommended for approval at the time of the Inquiry. But the evidence suggests that, even if this capacity were accepted in full, when past backlogs are taken into consideration the supply assessed against the Council’s constrained requirement of 360 dpa would amount only to 3.7 years’. If assessed against the full objectively assessed need, the supply would range from 2.9-3.1 years’.

27. The lack of a 5 year supply is common ground between the parties. The appellants’ case is primarily directed towards attributing weight to the shortfall, by questioning both the appropriate requirement and the Council’s assessment of the deliverable supply. Neither the NPPF nor the planning practice guidance advises on any scale of weight to be applied in relation to the extent of any shortfall below the 5 year supply. The Hunston Court of Appeal judgement considered that scale of shortfall could be material in the assessment of ‘very special circumstances’ as exceptional support for development in a Green Belt, but the wider applicability of this has yet to be tested.

28. In a recent appeal decision, the Secretary of State has accepted that where absence of a 5 year supply was common ground, there was no need to reach a definitive conclusion on the scale of the shortfall10. In my view, that is also the correct approach in the present case.

29. The circumstances are very different from cases, such as the recent Offenham appeal referred to by the appellants, where the Inspector had to reach a judgement on the disputed existence of a 5 year supply. The appellants also referred at the Inquiry to a number of appeal decisions where the Secretary of State or inspectors had attached significant weight to a shortfall, but none of these related to variation in weight due to the establishment of a greater or lesser shortfall.

30. It is clear that irrespective of the precise figure within the range set out above, and of the appellants’ lower assessment of the deliverable supply, the confirmed need for additional housing to boost the supply remains a matter of significant weight in support of the appeal proposal.

31. Furthermore, there is an acknowledged need for affordable housing. The most recent Housing Needs Survey of 2007 showed a net need of 317 dpa in the area of the borough outside the National Park, of which 209 were in Glossop. This annual need does not appear to have been met in any subsequent year, resulting in an increased backlog of cumulative need. The appeal proposal’s contribution of 30% affordable housing would deliver up to 45 units. Although this proportion would be no greater than required by saved LP Policy H9, the provision would add further weight in support of the proposal.

49. The submitted Transport Assessment (‘TA’) shows that some facilities, such as schools, open space and leisure provision, are within relatively close walking distance. This should

help to reduce car usage for short journeys. The town centre lies within a 2000m zone, so that the distance to the railway station would therefore be within the maximum recommended for commuting journeys on foot. I acknowledge that the TA appears not to take explicit account of the gradients involved in walking from the town centre, but even allowing for the relatively stiff climb to the site, the 17-20 minute duration quoted by residents and objectors would not place the site beyond acceptable limits for this purpose, and should not greatly encourage additional car journeys.

50. The same walk would be more challenging for anyone carrying shopping from the town centre, which provides the nearest food store, but there is a regular daytime bus service that would considerably shorten the trip, and also a more convenient occasional service along Heath Road, which could well be enhanced in response to the site’s development.

51. Problems of access during periods of snow would represent a further adverse factor. While accessibility is less than ideal in some respects, none of these issues, either alone or in combination would be sufficient to rule out the proposed development by reason of conflict with saved LP Policy TR1 or the guidance of the NPPF.

HPK/2012/0678 – Land at Long Lane, Chapel-en-le-Frith - Proposed Residential Development of 66no. Dwellings & Associated Works (Committee Report Published in February 2013)

4.88 This application was determined following the Manchester Road appeal decision. The officer report states that this site is located 1.2 kilometres from Chapel-en-le-Frith Town Centre.

4.89 Paragraph 3 of the main officer comment acknowledges the Manchester Road appeal decision and states that:

“Following the Manchester Road, Chapel, appeal decision in August 2012 it is clear that the authority does not have a 5 year housing supply. In September 2012 the figure stood at 3.4 years. Policies OC1 and H1 are therefore considered to be out of date and there is a strong presumption in favour of granting applications for sustainable development, specifically economic development ‘to boost significantly the supply of housing’ and ‘to ensure choice and competition in the market for land’ and to meet identified needs for affordable housing”.

Paragraph 4 goes on to state that:

“The key test in the determination of this application is whether or not the site is sustainable. The site lies adjacent to the existing settlement boundary, close to Chapel railway station with easy access to Buxton and Manchester, immediately adjacent to the secondary school and leisure centre and within walking distance of the town centre. On this basis it is considered that the site is sustainable in terms of NPPF requirements and therefore supportable in principle”.

4.90 With regard to landscape impact, paragraph 10 states that:

“There will be a significant change to the appearance and character of the land if the development were to be built. However, this is most significant in short range views and specifically from the houses opposite. The site is not especially prominent in longer range views and is self- contained – the land is bounded by the physical constraint of the railway embankment, which is some 7m high, and as such does not stretch into open countryside”.

HPK/2013/0319 - Land Rear of Hallsteads, Dove Holes, Buxton (Committee Report Published in September 2013)

4.91 This site is a greenfield site located on the edge of the village of Dove Holes. The officer report made the following statements about the acceptability in principle of the proposed development for 58 dwellings, as well as comments regarding sustainability:

1. The application site lies outside the built-up area boundary in an area of countryside where the principle of development falls to be determined under adopted Local Plan Policies H1 and OC1. Policy H1 in principle directs new housing to brownfield sites within built-up areas. Policy OC1 aims to protect the countryside from unwarranted development mfor its own sake.

2. The National Planning Policy Framework, makes it clear that housing applications should be considered ‘in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development’. Relevant housing supply policies should be considered out of date where a local authority cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites. Where relevant Policies are out of date the Framework advises that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

3. In addition to the 5 year supply, Local Planning Authorities are required to demonstrate a 20% buffer where there has been a ‘persistent under-delivery’ of housing. Following recent permissions granted throughout the Borough, and including the Ferodo decision, the housing supply figure stands at 4.6 years. Because of this shortfall in provision, policy H1 is considered to be out of date as a housing strategy policy and Policy OC1 should not be used as a housing restraint policy in principle.

4. The Frameworks strong presumption in favour of granting applications for sustainable development, specifically economic development ‘to boost significantly the supply of housing’; ‘to ensure choice and competition in the market for land’ and to meet identified needs for affordable housing; means that one of the key tests for this application is whether the site is sustainable.

5. The application site lies immediately adjacent to the built up area boundary and within 300m of the A6 trunk road, where a bus service operates to Buxton and Chapel. The railway station is located approximately 1.1km from the site which links the village with Buxton and Manchester. There are presently no local shops within Dove Holes, however, there are good community facilities within the village including a church, primary school and cricket club/community association which are within walking distance of the site.

6. The Framework suggests that there are three dimensions to sustainable development- social; economic and environmental. It is clear that the site will offer social benefits in terms of adding to the supply of housing and will have a benefit to the economy. Environmentally, the site does not have a high value – it is not designated as Special Landscape Area; Green Belt or designated wildlife site. Taking into account all of these factors it is considered that the development does meet the sustainability test and in accordance with the Framework, there is a presumption in favour of the proposal. Secretary of State Decisions

4.92 A number of Secretary of State decisions on applications that have fallen within Neighourhood Plan areas have been considered in recent months, and these are considered further below.

APP/B3410/A/13/2209697 – Land South of Forest School Street, Rolleston-on-Dove, Staffordshire – Determined on 15 December 2014

4.93 This application was originally refused by the council. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed and planning permission granted. The Secretary of State disagreed that with the Inspector’s recommendation. The SoS made the following conclusions:

• The Local Plan was subject to examination, and as it was “ way off adoption ” was given limited weight. • At the time of writing, the council had yet to make a decision on the NP proceeding to referendum. • Policies OS1, OS2 and IN2 precluded development of the appeal site. Policy OS1 of the NP defines a settlement boundary which precludes development beyond it, other than on any allocated sites or sites with an extant planning permission. Policy OS2 defines local green spaces (the appeal site was designated as one as it was used by residents for recreational purposes). Policy IN2 proposed the appeal site in this case to be returned to an operational sports ground. • Within the extant (saved) development plan, the site lies outside of the settlement boundary. • There was a substantial shortfall in the five year housing land supply. • On the whole, the SoS concluded that the proposal could be regarded as sustainable development in accordance with the Framework. • Prematurity was the sole objection raised by the council. The guidance sets out the criteria whereby planning permission can be refused on the grounds of prematurity (i.e. if

the adverse effects of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the benefits and any other material considerations into account. • The secretary of state agreed with the Inspector that allowing the appeal would in effect prejudice the outcome of the site allocation of this land. However, the emerging local plan carries only limited weight and the secretary of state does not believe that approving development of this scale at this site would to a significant degree undermine the plan making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to the emerging local plan. • The secretary of state agreed with the Inspector’s assessment of the conformity of the proposal against the emerging NP and agrees that the NP has reached an advanced enough stage to meet the Guidance criterion on prematurity. • The Secretary of State attributed little weight to the policies of the NP as suggested for submission to referendum following the independent examiners report. However he notes the weight of support and engagement from the local community in the process of bringing this front runner neighbourhood plan to this advanced stage as evidenced in the supporting material submitted during the inquiry. • The secretary of state considered that the effect of granting planning permission would undermine the neighbourhood plan making process in this case. The secretary of state gave significant weight to the opportunity which the NP process gives to local people to ensure they get the right types of development for their community. • Although the development would be in direct conflict with the policies in the NP as suggested following the Examiners report, to allow the appeal in advance of the NP progressing to referendum would represent a large scale development that is not in a location that is explicitly provided for by the NP or required to be incorporated as a strategic requirement. Therefore the appeal proposal undermines the neighbourhood plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale and location of new development central to the emerging NP. The Secretary of State assigned significant weight to the prematurity to the NP.

APP/0665/A/14/2214400 – Land at Well Meadow, Well Street, Malpas, Cheshire – Determined on 7 January 2015.

4.94 This application was refused by the council. In this case, the Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed. The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector’s recommendation. The SoS made the following conclusions:

• The Development plan consists of saved policies of the Chester District Local Plan 2006.

• The emerging plan was given weight as policies within it had been considered to be sound at examination. Weight was also given to the emerging policies of the NP.

• The Council could demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.

• Potential social and economic benefits of the provision of additional housing are reduced in the case of Malpas given the extensive existing commitments for new housing around the village.

• The SOS agreed that the site has an open rural character and that the development would result in a significantly harmful loss of openness and open countryside to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. He also agreed that the visual impact of the development would be greatest for recreational users who would experience a sever adverse visual impact.

• The harm to nearby heritage assets would be only slightly adverse, however it merits considerable weight and importance arising from the Section 66 duty. The secretary of state agreed that associated conflict with relevant heritage policies would need to be weighed with any public benefits of the scheme in terms of paragraph 134 of the Framework.

• The secretary of state concluded that the provision of new homes, including affordable housing, would be an important social and economic benefit but, like the inspector, he gave this benefit reduced weight in light of the extensive provision for housing already made locally around Malpas, which goes beyond the provisions set out for its supply in the merging Local Plan.

• The SoS agreed with the Inspector that the environmental harm, including harm to landscape character and appearance of the countryside and to the setting and heritage significance of the Grade II listed farmhouse conflicts with the relevant polices of the Local Plan, emerging Local Plan and NP and outweighs the benefits of additional housing provision.

• In light of the balancing exercise carried out in this case, the SoS did not make any conclusions on prematurity.

APP/Y3940/A/13/2200503 – Land off Park Road, Malmesbury, Wiltshire – Determined on 8 September 2014

4.95 In this case, the council refused the application, but the Inspector recommended the appeal be allowed and planning permission granted. The Secretary of State disagreed with the Inspector’s recommendation. The SoS made the following conclusions:

• In terms of the development plan, saved policies of the adopted Wiltshire Local Plan were relevant, as was the emerging Core Strategy which had passed examination stage. The SoS acknowledged the intention of the council to review settlement boundaries as part of the site allocations DPD, which was a relevant material consideration. • The Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan had been submitted to the Council for examination. • In addition, to the above considerations, the council could only demonstrate a 4.1 year supply of housing land. • In terms of weight to be attributed to the NP, the SoS concluded that the NP would carry significant weight given the stage that it had reached. The SoS therefore gave significant

weight to the fact that the emerging NP had identified allocations elsewhere and that the council had yet to complete an up to date objectively assessed housing land supply analysis against which to measure the overall NP proposals. As such, the SoS tipped the balance in favour of the emerging NP proposals, whilst accepting that these may need to be revisited in due course. • The SoS also concluded that the release of land for 180 dwellings on another site had reduced the urgency of the need to deliver further housing in the NP area. • The SoS went on to conclude that allowing the appeal could result in significant and demonstrable adverse impact on the outcomes of both the CS and the NP and that when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole, that could run the risk of outweighing any immediate benefits provided by the appeal scheme.

Appeal references APP/D3830/A/13/2203080, APP/D3830/A/12/2189451, and APP/D3830/A/13/2203080 – three sites in Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common – determined on 4 September 2014

4.96 All three of the above appeals concerned sites in the same NP area. Appeal references 2203080 and 2189451 were both refused by the council. In both instances, the Inspector recommended that the appeals be allowed. In respect of appeal reference 2203080, the SoS agreed with the Inspector’s recommendation, however with regard to appeal reference 2189451, the SoS disagreed with the Inspector’s recommendation and the appeal was dismissed.

4.97 With regard to the third appeal, the council recommended refusal, which was overturned by its planning committee who voted to approve the scheme. Prior to the issue of the decision, the SoS called in the application for his determination along with the two appeals referred to above.

4.98 In the case of this authority the council were unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply. With regard to the appeal that was allowed, the site was proposed for allocation for housing in the emerging NP.

4.99 With regard to all of the appeals, the Secretary of State made the following conclusions:

• The SoS noted that since the Inspector wrote her report, the submission version of the NP had completed its public consultation and had been submitted to the council for examination. Therefore, although it had not completed its examination or referendum, the SoS determined that the NP could be given more weight than when the Inspector considered the appeal.

• The SoS gave significant weight to the fact that the emerging NP had identified sites for housing and, as the council has yet to complete an up to date objectively assessed housing needs against which to measure the overall NP proposals, he considered it appropriate, as things stand, to tip the balance in favour of the emerging NP proposals.

• With regard to the second appeal, the SoS made similar conclusions regarding the weight to be given to the emerging NP, however this site was not proposed as an allocation. The SoS went on to refer to the written ministerial statement of 10 July 2014 to give local people an opportunity to ensure they get the right types of development for their community while also planning positively to support strategic development needs. The SoS gave significant weight to the fact that the emerging NP has identified housing allocations elsewhere within the NP area and that the council has yet to complete an up to date objectively assessed housing needs analysis against which to measure the overall NP proposals. As such, the SoS tipped the balance in favour of the emerging NP proposals, whilst accepting that they may need to be revisited in due course.

• In making his overall conclusions, the SoS appreciated the remaining stages through which the NP had to pass, which may show that more land needs to be allocated, however the SoS considered that it would be inappropriate to prejudge that at this stage.

• With regard to the third appeal, the SoS drew the same conclusions as above, however in addition, the site was located within a designated Local Gap (identified in both the Local Plan and NP as preventing coalescence with a neighbouring settlement, which was already considered to be very narrow), and the Inspector and the SoS gave weight to the conflict that the proposal would have on the designated Local Gap, which weight against allowing the proposal.

4.100 In light of the above conclusions, section 5 of this statement will consider the implications of these decisions with regard to the principle of development at Long Lane, whilst also highlighting the differences between the situation in Chapel-en-le-Frith and the other neighbourhood plans where the above decisions have been made.

Neighbourhood Planning Legislation and Guidance

4.101 Paragraphs 4.102 to 4.127 will now consider legislation, policy and guidance concerning the preparation of Neighbourhood Plan and their role in the determination of planning applications.

Localism Act

4.102 Schedule 9 of the 2011 Localism Act sets out additions and amendments to the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act and the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act. Part 2 of Schedule 9 of the Localism Act sets out amendments to Section 38 of the 2004 Act.

4.103 The 2011 Localism Act adds to subsection 3 of Section 38 “neighbourhood development plans which have been made in relation to that area” . In effect, once adopted, neighbourhood plans become part of the development plan.

4.104 Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (as amended) therefore requires that any future planning application within the neighbourhood plan area must be

determined in accordance with the development plan (including adopted neighbourhood plans), unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.105 Schedule 9 of the 2011 Localism Act adds Section 38A to the 2004 Act, setting out that more than half of those voting in a referendum on the plan must be in favour of adopting the plan in order for it to be adopted. The neighbourhood plan must also be compatible with any EU obligation and the Human Rights Act.

4.106 Schedule 9 of the 2011 Localism Act adds Section 38B to the 2004 Act, which sets out the provisions that may be made by neighbourhood development plans. The neighbourhood plan must specify the period for which it is to have effect, and only one neighbourhood plan can be made for each neighbourhood area. If to any extent a policy set out in the neighbourhood plan conflicts with any other statement or information in the plan, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy.

National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework)

4.107 Paragraph 14 carries with it the presumption in favour of sustainable development. For plan making, this means that local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area. Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change unless the impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

4.108 Paragraph 16 states that the application of the presumption will have implications for how communities engage in neighbourhood planning. Critically, it will mean that neighbourhoods should:

• develop plans that support the strategic development needs set out in Local Plans, including policies for housing and economic development

• plan positively to support local development, shaping and directing development in their area that is outside the strategic elements of the Local Plan; and

• identify opportunities to use Neighbourhood Development Orders to enable developments that are consistent with their neighbourhood plan to proceed.

4.109 Paragraph 183 of the Framework states that parishes and neighbourhood forums can use neighbourhood planning to set planning policies through neighbourhood plans to determine decisions on planning applications.

4.110 Paragraph 184 of the Framework states that the ambition of the neighbourhood plan must be aligned with the needs and priorities of the wider local area, as well as be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the local plan.

4.111 To facilitate this, local planning authorities should set out clearly their strategic policies for the area and ensure that an up-to-date Local Plan is in place as quickly as possible. Neighbourhood plans should reflect these policies and neighbourhoods should plan positively

to support them. Neighbourhood plans and orders should not promote less development than set out in the Local Plan or undermine its strategic policies.

4.112 Paragraph 185 states that outside these strategic elements, neighbourhood plans will be able to shape and direct sustainable development in their area. Once a neighbourhood plan has demonstrated its general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan and is brought into force, the policies it contains take precedence over existing non-strategic policies in the Local Plan for that neighbourhood, where they are in conflict. Local planning authorities should avoid duplicating planning processes for non-strategic policies where a neighbourhood plan is in preparation.

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

4.113 NPPG was published on 6 March 2014 and contains guidance on neighbourhood planning. NPPG states that the guidance provides advice on the neighbourhood planning system introduced by the Localism Act including key stages and decisions.

4.114 Paragraph 004 of the NPPG guidance on neighbourhood planning states that a neighbourhood plan must address the development and use of land. This is because if successful at examination and referendum, the neighbourhood plan will become part of the statutory development plan once in force. Neighbourhood plans can include wider community aspirations other than those relating to the development and use of land, however actions dealing with non land use matters should be clearly identifiable, perhaps being set out in a companion document or annex.

4.115 Paragraph 021 sets out the role of the LPA in neighbourhood planning. LPAs must take decisions at key stages in the neighbourhood planning process as well as provide advice or assistance to those who are preparing a neighbourhood plan.

4.116 Paragraph 040 states that there is no tick box list of evidence required for neighbourhood planning. However, proportionate, robust evidence should support the choices made and the approach taken. The evidence should be drawn upon to explain succinctly the intention and rationale of the policies in the neighbourhood plan. The LPA should share relevant evidence, including that gathered to support its own plan making.

4.117 Paragraph 041 states that a policy in a neighbourhood plan should be clear and unambiguous. It should be concise, precise and supported by appropriate evidence.

4.118 Paragraph 042 states that a neighbourhood plan can allocate sites for development, and a qualifying body should carry out an appraisal of options and assessment of individual sites against clearly identified criteria. Paragraph 042 provides a link to guidance contained elsewhere in NPPG relating to the preparation of housing land availability assessments and viability.

4.119 Paragraph 044 confirms that a neighbourhood plan can allocated additional sites to those in a local plan where this is supported by evidence to demonstrate need above that identified in

the Local Plan. Paragraph 044 goes on to state that the resulting draft neighbourhood plan must meet the basic conditions if it is to proceed.

4.120 Crucially, paragraph 044 confirms that should there be a conflict between a policy in a neighbourhood plan and a policy in a local plan, section 38(5) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act confirms that the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document to become part of the development plan.

4.121 Paragraph 048 confirms that a qualifying body must consult any of the consultation bodies who it considers may be affected by the draft neighbourhood plan, as set out in the 2012 statutory instrument.

4.122 When submitting a neighbourhood plan, the local planning authority must satisfy itself that a draft neighbourhood plan submitted to it for independent examination complies with all the relevant statutory requirements set out in schedule 4B of the 1990 Act (as amended). The LPA has to be satisfied that a basic condition statement has been submitted but it is not required to consider whether the draft plan or order meets the basic conditions. It is only after the independent examination has taken place and after the examiner’s report has been received that the LPA comes to a formal view on whether the draft neighbourhood plan meets the basic conditions.

4.123 Paragraph 054 confirms that where the draft neighbourhood plan submitted to the LPA meets the requirements in the legislation, the LPA must publicise the plan for a minimum of 6 weeks and then send the draft neighbourhood plan to independent examination.

4.124 Paragraph 055 confirms the role of the independent examiner. When considering the content of a neighbourhood plan, an independent examiners role is limited to testing whether or not a draft neighbourhood plan meets the basic conditions.

4.125 Paragraph 065 sets out the basic conditions that a draft neighbourhood plan must meet if it is to proceed to referendum.

(a) having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State it is appropriate to make the order (or neighbourhood plan). The link to supplemental guidance to this criterion confirms that a neighbourhood plan must no constrain the delivery of important national policy objectives. Reference is also made to paragraph 16 and 184 of the Framework. The qualifying body should set out in the basic conditions statement how they have had regard to national policy and consider whether a particular policy is or is not relevant.

(b) having special regard to the desirability of preserving any listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses, it is appropriate to make the order. This applies only to Orders.

(c) having special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of any conservation area, it is appropriate to make the order. This applies only to Orders.

(d) the making of the order (or neighbourhood plan) contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 072 confirms that the qualifying body must demonstrate how its plan will contribute to improvements in environmental, economic or social conditions or that consideration has been given to how any potential adverse effects arising from the proposals may be prevented, reduced or offset (referred to as mitigation measures). In order to demonstrate contribution towards sustainable development, sufficient, proportionate evidence should be presented on how the draft neighbourhood plan guides development to sustainable solutions.

(e) the making of the order (or neighbourhood plan) is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area of the authority (or any part of that area). When considering general conformity, the examiner must consider whether the neighbourhood plan policy supports and upholds the general principle that the strategic policy is concerned with; the degree of conflict with any strategic policy; whether the draft neighbourhood policy provides an additional level of detail or distinct local approach to that set out in the strategic policy without undermining that policy; and the rationale for the approach taken in the draft neighbourhood plan or order and the evidence to justify that approach. NPPG states that paragraph 156 of the Framework sets out the strategic matters about which local planning authorities are expected to include policies in their local plans. These include the following:

(i) the homes and jobs needed in the area;

(ii) the provision of retail, leisure and other commercial development;

(iii) the provision of infrastructure for transport, communications, waste management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change management, and the provision of minerals and energy (including heat);

(iv) the provision of health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities; and,

(v) climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape.

(f) the making of the order (or neighbourhood plan) does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, EU obligations.

(g) prescribed conditions are met in relation to the Order (or plan) and prescribed matters have been complied with in connection with the proposal for the order (or neighbourhood plan).

4.126 With regard to the determination of a planning application and the guidance contained within NPPG, paragraph 014 outlines the circumstances where it might be justifiable to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity. The guidance states the following:

premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the Framework and any other material considerations into account. Such circumstances are likely, but not exclusively, to be limited to situations where both:

a) the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging Local Plan or Neighbourhood Planning; and

b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area.

Refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified where a draft Local Plan has yet to be submitted for examination, or in the case of a Neighbourhood Plan, before the end of the local planning authority publicity period. Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the local planning authority will need to indicate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process.

4.127 In this case Annex 1 of the Framework needs to be considered, which states at paragraph 216 that:

From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

• The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);

• The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given; and

• The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater weight that may be given).

5. ASSESSMENT

Principle of Development

5.1 Firstly, the principle of development must be considered against the adopted High Peak Borough Local Plan as this is the only adopted development plan document in operation at the time of writing.

5.2 The application site is located adjacent to the built up area boundary of Chapel-en-le-Frith. The site adjoins Chapel-en-le-Frith High School to the north, and to the north west lie the properties of Downlee Close and Frith View. To the east of this site lies an existing mineral railway which sits at an elevated level above the site, beyond which is a predominantly residential area.

5.3 The site is currently designated as open countryside on the extant Local Plan Proposals Map. The relevant policy concerning development in the open countryside is Local Plan policy OC1, which seeks, in essence, to protect the countryside from encroachment for its own sake. As such, in normal circumstances, development of these sites would be resisted.

5.4 However, since the adoption of the Local Plan in 2005, the Framework has been published, which supersedes previous planning policy guidance notes (PPG’s) and planning policy statements (PPS’s) that previously adopted development plans would have been based upon.

5.5 When considering the principle of development in the context of new proposals for housing development, the decision maker must turn to paragraph 14 of the Framework, which states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved without delay. Where the development plan is absent, silent, or where relevant policies are out of date, permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or specific policies indicate that development should be restricted.

5.6 In this case, the site does not lie within an AONB, Green Belt, SSSI, Special Landscape Area, National Park, or flood risk area. The site is not protected under the Birds and Habitats regulations, nor is a site designated as local green space. As such, there are no specific policies within the extant Local Plan that indicate that development should be restricted in the first instance.

5.7 As such, consideration needs to be given as to whether or not the development plan is out of date. Section 4 of this statement sets out the relevant development plan policies and other material considerations upon which this application should be determined.

5.8 With regard to the development plan, the only adopted development plan document that is available is the saved policies of the High Peak Borough Local Plan, which was adopted in 2005. Section 4 assesses the relevant policies in the plan, their conformity with the Framework, and whether or not relevant policies are out of date. Section 5 demonstrates that High Peak Borough Council still cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land. Previous appeal decisions have also confirmed that the council has persistently

delivered housing in the area, and that a 20% buffer should be added to the five year housing land supply. Paragraph 49 of the Framework states that relevant policies for the supply of housing cannot be considered up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land.

5.9 The council accept that they cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply of deliverable housing sites with the appropriate buffer as required by the Framework, although the applicant and the council have calculated the supply using different approaches, depending upon whether the emerging Local Plan figure is used, or the objectively assessed needs figures are used to calculate the supply.

5.10 Notwithstanding the differences between the assessments of the five year housing land supply, there can be no dispute that the council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land. As such, relevant policies for the supply of housing contained within the Local Plan are considered to be out of date and in accordance with paragraph 14 of the Framework, there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Principle of Development in the Context of the Emerging Neighbourhood Plan

5.11 Notwithstanding the above, in light of recently published decisions by the Secretary of State, the NP also needs to be given due consideration on a policy by policy basis.

5.12 Firstly, with regard to the Secretary of State’s decisions, it is important to note a number of points in each case.

5.13 With regard to the Malpas (Cheshire West) decision, the council could demonstrate a five year housing land supply, there was conflict with heritage policies, and there were extensive existing commitments for new housing around the village, which is much smaller in comparison to Chapel-en-le-Frith. In addition, the SoS concluded that the site would result in a significantly harmful loss of openness of the countryside (the site was physically separate from the built up area boundary). In this case, the SoS did not need to draw any conclusions on prematurity, given that he considered the proposal not to be sustainable development in the first instance.

5.14 With regard to the Rollestone on Dove (South Staffordshire) decision, the council could not demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and the extant development plan was out of date. In this case, the SoS concluded that the proposal would comprise sustainable development in the context of Framework paragraph 14, however the SoS refused to grant planning permission on the grounds of prematurity.

5.15 With regard to the three sites at Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common (Sussex), the SoS allowed the appeals concerning sites that were proposed to be allocated, but dismissed the other appeals on the grounds of prematurity. In addition, one of the sites was located within a Local Gap that was designated in the extant development plan. It is also important to note that with regard to the preparation of a new Local Plan, that the council had yet to complete an up to date objectively assessed housing needs analysis against which to measure the overall NP proposals. As such, in this case, it could have been argued that there were no

objectively assessed needs to determine whether or not additional homes needed to be allocated in the NP area.

5.16 With regarding the Malmesbury (Wiltshire) decision, again the council could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply, and, as with the Sussex decisions, the council had yet to determine its full objectively assessed needs. The SoS also concluded that allowing the appeal would result in significant adverse impact on the outcome of the Core Strategy and NP.

5.17 Firstly, in comparison to all of the above cases, High Peak Borough Council has identified its objectively assessed needs of 420 – 470 dwellings per annum. At the recent examination to the High Peak Plan, notwithstanding future CLG projections to be published in February and notwithstanding their proposal for a constrained figure of 360 dwellings per annum, the council accepted that the full objectively assessed need for housing is 470 dwellings per annum.

5.18 With regard to the prematurity issues highlighted above, it is necessary to consider the Framework, NPPG and the policies of the examination version of the NP in detail.

5.19 Firstly, looking at the NP itself, it has been through consultation stage with the council and has been submitted for examination. At the time of writing, the examination had yet to take place. The key NP policies concerning the principle of development are policies H1 and C1.

5.20 In the case of the NP policies, H1 does not define a settlement boundary, nor does it define allocated sites on a proposals map. In addition, the wording of the policy is clear – policy H1 states that land is allocated for a minimum of 454 new homes. The plan does not on its face prevent a greater number of houses from being accepted.

5.21 The supporting text to the policy states that a sustainability appraisal was conducted to determine the selection of sites. The main criteria for the appraisal were sites that were within 15 minute walk of a town or village centre; to minimise impact on conservation and biodiversity, and to minimise impact on the landscape.

5.22 A copy of the Chapel-en-le-Frith NP sustainability matrix is attached at Appendix 9. A total of 17 sites were assessed, although some sites were not taken forward in the neighbourhood plan as they were not available. In the case of the application site, the site was ranked 9th out of all of the sites assessed, and only scored two points less that the site referenced HS5 (ranked 8 th ) in policy H1 that is proposed to be allocated for housing. The application site is located adjacent to site HS5.

5.23 In the context of the supporting Transport Assessment by SCP, the site is located within 1200 metres of the town centre, and adjoins the High School and Leisure Centre. The site is also within 1200 metres of the railway station which provides links to Buxton, Stockport and Manchester. As such, the proposals would comply with the first of the main sustainability criteria.

5.24 With regard to minimising the impact on conservation and biodiversity, an ecology survey has been carried out by Rachel Hacking Ecology by a qualified ecological consultant. The study clearly demonstrates that the site is of low ecological value and that measures can be incorporated into the proposals, such as ponds, swales, trees and open green spaces to provide ecological corridors through the development. As such, there would be minimal impact on matters of conservation and biodiversity, as well as opportunities to enhance ecological features.

5.25 With regard to minimising impact on the landscape, it should be noted that in the council’s Landscape Impact Assessment by Wardell Armstrong (which forms part of the council’s evidence base) that the site was identified as being an appropriate site in landscape terms that could accommodate development. The site was identified as P19. The Landscape Impact Assessment stated that development of the site would have “low visual impact ” and a “low effect on the setting of the National Park” . In addition, an LVIA has been produced by Tyler Grange which accompanies this application.

5.26 Overall, it has been established that, through the careful consideration of site proposals (in relation to baseline data and fieldwork) residual landscape and visual effects of proposed development of land to the west of Long Lane would be mostly localised. The most significant visual effects will be experienced from the site’s immediate surroundings and proposed development would have a limited effect on the site’s wider landscape character. There are clear opportunities to protect and strengthen the existing boundary vegetation, which would be characteristic of the wider landscape character area. To represent a more significant impact, the development as proposed would have to cause substantial loss or unacceptable alteration to a number of valued components of landscape, including the introduction of elements that are both visually intrusive and uncharacteristic. Having undertaken a structured assessment, it has been concluded that this would not be the case.

5.27 As such, in light of landscape considerations, there would be limited impact on the landscape and as such, the third sustainability criteria of H1 would not be materially compromised.

5.28 Policy C1 seeks to establish a “special landscape area”. As demonstrated above, both High Peak Borough Council’s evidence base document (the Wardell Armstrong Landscape Impact Assessment), as well as the submitted landscape and visual impact assessment by Tyler Grange demonstrate that there would only be a very localised visual impact of developing this site and that given the location of the site adjacent to an elevated railway line, and adjacent to the built up area boundary, there would be no impact on the character and setting of the Peak District National Park.

5.29 The wording of policy C1 itself under criterion a. states that the Special Landscape Area’s distinctive character and key features will be protected against inappropriate development, and, where possible, enhanced for their environmental value and amenity use.

5.30 Criterion b. limits housing development to small scale development or conversion.

5.31 Criterion c. goes on to state that where development is acceptable in principle and does not conflict with the aims of conservation and enhancement, measures will be sought to integrate it into the landscape character of the area. The policy then goes on to identify a number of criteria that proposals for new development must take into account. These will be addressed in detail when landscape impact is considered later in this statement, however it is asserted that the criteria listed under criterion c. can be incorporated into the proposals.

5.32 Turning now to prematurity, the cases summarised in this statement that have been determined by the Secretary of State raise objections relating to prematurity.

5.33 With regard to the determination of a planning application and the guidance contained within NPPG, paragraph 014 outlines the circumstances where it might be justifiable to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity. The guidance states the following:

Annex 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework explains how weight may be given to policies in emerging plans. However in the context of the Framework and in particular the presumption in favour of sustainable development – arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the Framework and any other material considerations into account. Such circumstances are likely, but not exclusively, to be limited to situations where both:

b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area.

5.34 In this case Annex 1 of the Framework also needs to be considered, which states at paragraph 216 that:

From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

• The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);

• The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given; and

5.35 The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater weight that may be given).

5.36 In this case, the NP has completed its local planning authority publicity period, so there may be a case for stating that the proposal might be premature. However, in this case, we have NP policies that do not explicitly preclude development beyond the existing settlement boundary. In addition, the proposals would represent a housing development adjoining a settlement which is at the top of the settlement hierarchy and the main focus for growth in the emerging High Peak Local Plan.

5.37 Added to the above, consideration must be given to Framework paragraph 216 which identifies the weight to be afforded to emerging plans. Whilst the NP, and indeed the emerging LP have reached examination stage, consideration must also be given to the extent to which there are unresolved objections. The less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight they may be given.

5.38 In this case, it is necessary to look at the objections made (if any) during the NP consultation period.

5.39 Knights LLP have reviewed the representations made to the NP consultation during November 2014. In total 327 individual representations were made to the plan by a range of individuals and organisations. Some of these representations make general comments on the plan, and others make representations on one or a number of policies contained within the NP.

5.40 In terms of the key policies that are relevant to these proposals, policies H1 and C1 have received a substantial number of comments. Upon reviewing the representations to these policies, there have been 191 objections (58.4% of all representations) to policy H1 and 189 objections (57.8% of all representations) to policy C1. The number of objections to policy H1 significantly outweigh any comments in support of it.

5.41 In terms of policy H1, a number of objections raised concerns with regards to housing numbers, and that a lower number of housing (notwithstanding that the figure is a minimum) would inhibit the sustainable growth of Chapel-en-le-Frith. Objections were also raised that this policy fails to take a long term view in terms of ensuring the new housing meets existing and future local need and demand. A large number of these objections appear to have been raised by individual residents, which implies that the plan does not have the full support of people living in the neighbourhood in terms of providing the amount of housing that residents wish to secure for future generations. Some representations also consider that the proposed NP housing numbers should be based upon the final adopted figure of the emerging High Peak Local Plan once it is adopted, and that the adoption of the NP should wait until High

Peak has a robust housing figure upon which neighbourhoods can then shape the required development in their area.

5.42 Given that there are substantial objections to policy H1 (which are material in planning terms), it is considered that this policy should be given less weight in accordance with paragraph 216 of the Framework.

5.43 Likewise, policy C1 is also subject to substantial objections from residents who consider that there is already a designated special landscape area around the town as defined in the saved High Peak Local Plan. In addition, many representations cite the fact that the evidence supporting the designation of an extensive special landscape area is limited, particularly with regard to High Peak Borough Council’s supporting evidence base concerning landscape. As such, given that the proposed special landscape area is subject to significant objections regarding the planning merits of such a designation, then it is considered that this policy should be given less weight in accordance with paragraph 216 of the Framework.

5.44 Further to the above, the Secretary of State has given significant weight to localism and the powers available for local people to shape development of their areas. The representations made to the examination version of the NP clearly demonstrate that the plan has been drafted in such a way that the majority of local residents, landowners and business owners who have made representations to the plan are against policies H1 and C1 and that the majority of residents who have made representations would like to see Chapel-en-le-Frith grow into a more sustainable community with additional housing to meet the needs of future generations. As such, given that more people object to policies H1 and C1 than support it, then the views of the majority should take precedence.

5.45 Having further regard to policies contained within the Framework, paragraph 198 of the Framework states that where a planning application conflicts with a NP, that planning permission should not normally be granted. The precise wording is as follows:

Where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted.

5.46 In this case, the NP has yet to be brought into force, and cannot be brought into force until it has passed the examination stage, proceeded to referendum and had a majority vote in favour before being adopted. As such, there is still a considerable amount of time to go before the plan is adopted. As such, it is not considered that the proposals can be refused under paragraph 198 at this stage.

5.47 Should the NP pass examination and referendum prior to the determination of this planning application, then it will be the case that the NP could be adopted in accordance with an out of date development plan (i.e. the extant LP). In the event that High Peak Borough Council are still unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, then relevant policies for the supply of housing would be considered to be out of date in accordance with paragraph 49 of the Framework. This would then trigger paragraph 49 of the Framework, which clearly states that:

Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless:

• Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, or

• Specific policies in this Framework indicate that development should be restricted.

5.48 In this regard, Schedule 9 of the 2011 Localism Act sets out additions and amendments to the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act and the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act. Part 2 of Schedule 9 of the Localism Act sets out amendments to Section 38 of the 2004 Act.

5.49 The 2011 Localism Act adds to subsection 3 of Section 38 “neighbourhood development plans which have been made in relation to that area” . In effect, once adopted, neighbourhood plans become part of the development plan.

5.50 Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (as amended) therefore requires that any future planning application within the neighbourhood plan area must be determined in accordance with the development plan (including adopted neighbourhood plans), unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.51 As such, should the NP be adopted prior to the determination of this application, then paragraph 14 would apply because the council is still unlikely to be in a position where it can demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. In this case, it is considered that the presumption in favour or sustainable development would still apply, given that NP areas are not listed as one of the restrictions under footnote 9 of paragraph 14.

5.52 In light of the above considerations regarding the continually evolving planning policy landscape concerning neighbourhood plans, it can be concluded that:

1. The context surrounding the Chapel NP is different to those that have already been considered in cases determined by the Secretary of State insofar as:

a. The council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply;

b. The council has identified its objectively assessed needs (and in the context of Hunston, cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply on this basis);

c. The site was not the least preferred option as stated within the sustainability appraisal carried out as part of the preparation of the NP;

d. The proposals would not be in direct conflict with policies H1 and C1;

e. Notwithstanding the preparation of an NP, a significant number of local people, business owners, and landowners have raised material planning objections to policies H1 and C1 and in accordance with paragraph 216 of the Framework, these policies should be afforded less weight. This was not

the case when the Secretary of State considered the appeals referred to above;

f. Prematurity carries less weight in the balancing exercise in this case given the material nature of the objections raised and the overwhelming local objections to policies H1 and C1.

2. Should the plan be adopted, changes made to the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act meant that it would become part of the development plan. If the NP is adopted when the council still cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, the relevant policies for the supply of housing (including policy C1 in the context of the Cotswold High Court Judgement) contained within the NP cannot be considered up to date and the presumption in favour or sustainable development should still apply. NP designations are not subject to the exceptions listed under footnote 9 of Paragraph 14.

5.53 It is clear in this case that the proposals would comprise sustainable development (as set out further below) and there are no material considerations that indicate the planning permission ought to be refused. In the context of the NP and prematurity, it is considered that limited weight can be given to relevant NP policies given the material planning objections to policies H1 and OC1 and that the submitted proposals do not materially conflict with these policies in any event. As such, in this case, it is not considered that a recommendation of refusal on the grounds of prematurity would be justified in this specific case. The circumstances are materially different and would not set an undesirable precedent of national significance. Each case must be determined on its own planning merits, based on the individual facts and policies to hand, and it is considered that the principle of development in this specific instance is acceptable.

Does the proposal comprise sustainable development?

5.54 Given that the principle of development is considered to be acceptable, this statement will now justify why the proposals are considered to comprise sustainable development.

5.55 The Framework sets out from paragraph 18 onwards the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system.

5.56 Sustainable development is a multi-faceted concept and does not simply relate to the proximity of a particular site to public transport or local shops and services. Paragraph 7 states that there are three dimensions to sustainable development – an economic role, a social role, and an environmental role.

5.57 With regard to the economic strand of sustainable development, section 1 of the Framework (paragraphs 18 – 22) sets out Government objectives for building a strong, competitive economy. Paragraph 19 places significant weight on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.

5.58 In this case, the proposed development seeks to provide the following:

• Around 250 dwellings comprising a mix of open market and affordable housing including some retirement homes; • Public open space; • Landscaping; • Sustainable drainage measures and ecological enhancements

5.59 In terms of the economic benefits of the proposed development, it is widely recognised that spending on construction and infrastructure significantly benefits the UK economy. A report by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and research company L.E.K highlighted that construction is the best sector for stimulating the economy and that for every £1 spent on construction an additional £1.84 is stimulated elsewhere within the economy (Construction in the UK Economy: The Benefits of Investment, 2009).

5.60 During the construction phase of development, the proposed development would sustain a large number of full time jobs in the construction sector. In addition, the development of the application site would generate significant capital spending in relation to construction costs. This investment would have far reaching benefits. The Home Builders Federation estimates a typical multiplier effect of up to 4 jobs per every home that is constructed. This would suggest that the site is capable of contributing to and helping to sustain around 1000 jobs through multiplier effects. Whilst such job opportunities could be located across a wide area, house builders generally seek to use local labour force and local suppliers where possible, therefore assisting to keep benefits local.

5.61 Following the completion of development, the benefits associated with residential development are long term. As new homes are built and occupied, additional economic benefits transpire for the local area including: • Greater economic activity resulting from new residents occupying new homes being in employment; • Potential for increased incomes and therefore the propensity to spend in the locality can increase.

5.62 The proposed development would provide an increased number of economically active residents, which would make an important contribution to the on-going competitiveness of Chapel-en-le-Frith in terms of maintaining the labour force and the supply of labour available to local businesses and prospective business investors.

5.63 In terms of local consumer spending, the proposed development has the potential to generate a significant level of annual household retail expenditure which would support objectives to maintain and enhance Chapel-en-le-Frith town centre, enhancing its vitality and viability for the benefit of all residents.

5.64 The proposal would also generate financial benefits to the local authority. The development of 250 homes on this site would generate in excess of £300,000 of council tax revenue per annum, in addition to over £1.5 million of New Home Bonus contributions to the area from central Government. Section 143 of Part 6 of the Localism Act states that local finance

considerations, such as contributions from the Crown/CIL as a result of the proposed development are material considerations when considering development proposals.

5.65 In addition to demonstrating economic benefits in terms of capital investment in the local area, the development site is located within an area where there are already existing employment opportunities, including Federal Mogul, employment sites of Sheffield Road, and employment sites off Bowden Lane.

5.66 The proposed development would provide a new range of housing that would appeal to the existing local workforce, which would have significant benefits to the local economy in terms of supporting local services and facilities and additional local expenditure to support local businesses.

5.67 There are clear synergies between inward investment and the availability of a mix of high quality housing. New businesses in the area or those seeking to relocate look for areas where there is an appropriate range of housing for their workforce. It is therefore essential that schemes, such as this proposal do come forward; not only to maintain the current workforce, but also to attract additional inward investment that would otherwise be lost to other areas.

5.68 The proposed development is therefore essential to maintaining and enhancing local employment opportunities by providing a high quality mixed housing scheme.

5.69 In summary, the proposal would deliver significant investment, resulting in substantial economic benefits to the local area. As such, it is considered that the economic strand to sustainability would be satisfied.

5.70 With regard to the social strand to sustainable development, the Framework seeks to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities by providing the supply of housing to meet the needs of present and future generations (emphasis added); and by creating a creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being.

5.71 In this case, the contribution to the supply of housing, the provision of a high quality built environment, and access to local services are relevant.

5.72 Providing a Housing Supply to Meet the Needs of Present and Future Generations - As highlighted earlier, the council cannot currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land. In addition, the council has under-delivered housing in the Borough over the previous five years. Whilst a number of planning applications for residential development have been permitted in recent months, there is still a significant shortfall of housing in the area. In particular, there is a significant shortfall in affordable housing as well as a backlog that needs addressing. This has been confirmed within the councils SHMA and a significant number of sites need to come forward to address existing and arising affordable housing needs.

5.73 This shortfall in delivery has an effect on the delivery of affordable housing, and a knock on effect on the ability to retain young and economically active households in the area.

5.74 The provision of around 250 dwellings would make a material contribution to reducing the housing shortfall in the area, and would provide a supply of open market and affordable housing to meet the needs of present and future generations in Buxton and the wider High Peak area.

5.75 The proposed development could provide a housing mix as follows: • 16 1-bed affordable homes • 37 2-bed affordable homes • 22 3-bed affordable homes • 25 1 and 2-bed retirement homes • 43 2-bed open market homes • 63 3-bed open market homes • 30 4-bed open market homes • 14 5-bed open market homes

5.76 In summary, the above would result in the provision of 75 affordable homes, 25 retirement homes and 150 open market dwellings. The smaller 1 and 2 bed dwellings could be provided in the form of flats within buildings comprising a maximum height of three storeys.

5.77 As such, the proposed development would contribute to delivering a mixed and balanced community, which seeks to address a range of housing needs, including open market dwellings of a range of sizes, the provision of a mix of affordable homes, and the provision of homes for older people in accordance with the Government’s housing policy objectives, particularly those expressed at paragraph 50 of the Framework.

5.78 The range of housetypes proposed accord with the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. The provision of a range of housetypes and sizes would meet objectively assessed needs, to which great weight should be attached.

5.79 Relationship with the Existing Settlement and Access to Local Services - With regard to existing services, Chapel-en-le-Frith contains the following services and facilities: • A town centre containing a range of shops and services (within 15 minutes walk of the site) • Chapel-en-le-Frith High School and leisure centre (which adjoins the site); • A primary school • Public open spaces • Employment zones • A railway station (within 1200 metres of the site) • A bus service along Manchester Road (which provides links to Buxton, Stockport and Manchester Airport)

5.80 The above services area located within a 2000m radius of the site subject to this planning application. As such, the site is located within a reasonable distance of existing community facilities as confirmed in the NP sustainability appraisal.

5.81 When looking at other relevant planning decisions in the area, the Inspector for the Forge Works site in Chinley stated that “The centre of the appeal site is located around 0.7km from shops within the centre of Chinley, around 1km from Chinley Railway Station and around 1.7km from Chinley Primary School…… I also acknowledge that there are existing parking problems at the railway station and within Chinley and that there have been reductions recently in the frequency of both bus and rail services in the area ”.

5.82 With regard to the recent planning decision for the site at Dove Holes, the officer report to committee stated that: “The application site lies immediately adjacent to the built up area boundary and within 300m of the A6 trunk road, where a bus service operates to Buxton and Chapel. The railway station is located approximately 1.1km from the site which links the village with Buxton and Manchester. There are presently no local shops within Dove Holes, however, there are good community facilities within the village including a church, primary school and cricket club/community association which are within walking distance of the site ”.

5.83 With regard to the decision to approve 66 dwellings (application number HPK/2012/0678) on the adjoining site off Long Lane, the officer report stated at paragraph 4 that:

5.84 In the context of the above decisions, these sites were located where there is either limited services, or there has been recent reductions in bus and train services in the locality that minimise opportunities to use transport modes other than the private car.

5.85 In the context of the above planning decisions, Chapel-en-le-Frith and this site off Long Lane is considered to perform materially better from an accessibility point of view, being located on the edge of a larger settlement that is considered to be a suitable location to accommodate a higher amount of development.

5.86 In addition to access to existing services, as discussed earlier, the site is located in very close proximity to a range of employment opportunities, which would provide existing and future employees at these locations an opportunity to live closer to their place of work, which in turn would reduce the need to travel, and reduce long distance in-commuting from elsewhere in High Peak and beyond. This would generate a positive contribution in terms of reducing long distance commuting and vehicular movements, contributing to the creation of both a sustainable community as well as reducing carbon emissions.

5.87 As such, the general location is considered to be suitable for housing development.

5.88 The proposed development has been informed through community engagement activities. Accompanying this planning application is a statement of community involvement. The report summarises feedback on the initial draft proposals, as well as taking into account previous representations to various drafts of the High Peak Local Plan and the previous draft Core Strategy as this land has previously been proposed for allocation and its potential for development has been in the public domain for a considerable period of time.

5.89 We acknowledge the concerns of residents concerning potential traffic impact, and this is addressed in the accompanying transport statement by SCP. Landscape impact has been considered in the LVIA by Tyler Grange as well as being taken into account in the design parameters plan by MCK Associates. The presence of wildlife and protected species have also been investigated further by Rachel Hacking Ecology and measures to enhance ecological features on the site have been recommended where appropriate. Drainage concerns have been addressed through the submitted flood risk assessment and drainage strategy by Waterco, with principles being incorporated into the parameters plan by MCK Associates. Notwithstanding in-principle objections to the proposals, it is considered that technical objections to the proposals raised by residents during the consultation period have been addressed satisfactorily.

5.90 Creating a High Quality Built Environment – Accompanying this planning application is a design and access statement. Whilst a site layout parameters plan has been submitted, layout, scale, access and appearance are matters reserved for future approval. The site layout plan has been submitted for indicative purposes with the design and access statement setting out the design principles that would inform any subsequent reserved matters planning application. The proposed development would be designed to respect the landscape character of the locality, and the proposed dwellings would be of a layout and scale that would be appropriate to the character and setting of Chapel-en-le-Frith. The applicants have gone to great lengths to prepare a site layout plan that is appropriate to the location, takes into account the landscape and topography of the area, and create streets and spaces that give the site a unique identity. In short, the proposed layout seeks to avoid providing an “anywhere” housing development in this location. The layout and density of the proposals have taken into account both the opinions of the local community and the landscape setting of the site, including views in and out of the site. The design and access statement sets out in more detail the design philosophy of the proposals. In summary, the design principles that have been set out in the design and access statement demonstrate that the proposals would achieve a high quality design that would meet Government Policies set out in the Framework.

5.91 In summary, it is considered that the social strand to sustainable development would be satisfied, as the proposal would provide a mix of housing to meet identified local needs, and is located with good access to a range of local community facilities.

5.92 With regard to the environmental strand to sustainability, the Framework seeks to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, help to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

5.93 Firstly, it should be noted that the site is not located within the Green Belt or Special Landscape Area (notwithstanding the proposed designation as such in the NP). The site is not located within a national park (in this case, the nearest national park is the Peak District National Park), nor is it located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In addition the site is not designated as a SSSI.

5.94 Agricultural Land Classification - In terms of enhancing the natural, built and historic environment, it is acknowledged that the site is a greenfield site located on the edge of the urban area. The site is currently used as grazing. The Natural England Agricultural Land Classification Map for the East Midlands Region shows that the land at Chapel-en-le-Frith is classified as Grade 4 land which is described as poor . As such, the site does not represent the best and most versatile agricultural land. Paragraph 112 of the Framework seeks to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land, and states that where the development of land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality.

5.95 Landscape Considerations - A key consideration in this case is landscape impact. A landscape and visual impact assessment accompanies this planning application which examines the impact of the proposals on the wider landscape and whether or not there would be any impact on the character and setting of the Peak District National Park.

5.96 Accompanying this planning application is a landscape and visual impact assessment by Tyler Grange. The LVIA states that the proposed development site is not covered by a qualitative or local landscape designation (including NPPF footnote 9 listed designations). In landscape terms, the principal focus of the local level policy is to protect and enhance the character and appearance of the landscape, including the acknowledged local residential design issues relating to the character context of the surrounding locality.

5.97 Wardell Armstrong’s ‘Landscape Impact Assessment’ (2014) identifies the site within land parcel P19, which is described as “land with the potential to accommodate development” . Proposed development of P19 is not considered to be significantly harmful because of its “low visual impact ” and its “low effect on the setting of the National Park” . The document also highlights appropriate mitigation measurements and design recommendations, stating that “Vegetation on the southern, eastern and western boundaries should be retained and strengthened in order to maintain low visual prominence. If development is proposed it will be necessary to create an appropriate landscape framework.” The Landscape Strategy and Initial Concept Plan have included these recommendations and aims to retain and strengthen the existing site boundary vegetation in order to soften the overall appearance of the site and help assimilate it into the surrounding landscape.

5.98 The site lies within ‘South West Peak’ Character Area, identified as Area 53. For the purpose of assessing the effects of development the National Character Areas are of limited significance as the classification covers such a wide area. The Derbyshire County Council’s published landscape character assessment, ‘The Landscape Character of Derbyshire’ (4 th edition, 2014) is the most detailed landscape character assessment of the local landscape and is relevant to the determination of the planning application.

5.99 For the purpose of ‘The Landscape Character of Derbyshire’ the site is identified within the ‘Dark Peak’ Landscape Character Area (Area 51)’ (a regional character area based on National Character Areas) and sits adjacent to the ‘Urban’ Landscape Character Type (LCT). Within the ‘Dark Peak’ Landscape Character Area the site is considered to occupy the ‘Settled Valley Pastures’ LCT.

5.100 The fieldwork carried out by Tyler Grange has established that the site, and its immediate surroundings, contains some features representative of the ‘Settled Valley Pastures’ LCT; such as, the winding lanes, wooded character, pastoral farming and poorly draining soils. However, it does not contain any particularly notable, rare or unique features, which is important to understand when considering the potential impacts of the proposed development in the context.

5.101 The site is located at the south-western settlement edge of Chapel-en-le-Frith and immediately adjacent to Chapel-en-le-Frith High School. It occupies part of a transitional landscape between Chapel-en-le-Frith and the wider pastoral farmland to the south. It is strongly influenced by the adjacent residential, educational and transport development, which gives the site ‘settlement fringe’ characteristics that are not commonly found in the wider ‘Settled Valley Pastures’ LCT.

5.102 In response to the County Council’s Landscape Character Assessment and the predicted changes to the site, Tyler Grange consider that the magnitude of change upon the ‘Settled Valley Pastures’ LCT is considered to be Medium. With reference to the sensitivity of the LCT and the magnitude of change associated with the proposed development, it is judged that the overall significance of landscape effects upon ‘Settled Valley Pastures’ LCT would be Moderate Adverse.

5.103 A full visual appraisal has determined that immediate views of the site are largely limited to the site and its immediate surroundings; however, a number of partially screened views are available to north and south of the site. The site is well-contained to the east and west, due to intervening tree belts, boundary vegetation, scrub and the raised railway embankment.. A number of long-distance views are available from the steeply rising ground that surrounds Chapel-en-le-Frith. Whilst the site is discernible from these elevated vantage points, it is seen in the context the existing settlement of Chapel-en-le-Frith and is only a minor component of much broader views across the surrounding valley landscape.

5.104 The setting of the Peak District National Park is not considered to be affected given the site’s strong associations with the urban fringe of Chapel-en-le-Frith. Views in close proximity of the site, notably from within the Special Landscape Area to the south of the site and west of the site, were taken into account as part of the assessment. Whilst the site is discernible, development would be seen against the established built form, associated with the existing settlement edge of Chapel-en-le-Frith, and development would be seen as a natural extension of the settlement edge to the south.

5.105 A number of visual receptors have been noted and taken into consideration as part of the visual assessment process. The most sensitive receptors have been identified as the users of

the adjacent PRoW network, and the nearby residents at the settlement edge of Chapel-en- le-Frith which overlook the site.

5.106 Nearby residential receptors, and the user of the nearby PRoW network, will experience the greatest magnitude of change (High), as immediate views of existing agricultural land are replaced with proposed residential development and views towards the surrounding open countryside are curtailed. Once new planting has become established, the residual effects for these visual receptors will be High to Moderate Adverse.

5.107 Other visual receptors are considered to be less sensitive and their experienced magnitude of change ranges from Medium to Low. Over time these visual receptors are likely to experience residual effects ranging from Moderate Adverse to Negligible.

5.108 As part of this outline planning application, a total of 4 potential site access points are proposed and their impacts on landscape character and visual perception have been included as part of this assessment. All of the options will create a change in visual perception and local street-scene character; although, it is likely that Option 1 & 4 will create the most significant change in visual perception and street-scene character experienced at the settlement edge of Chapel-en-le-Frith. In terms of landscape and visual impact, Option 3 is considered to be the most sympathetic to the local environment and will have limited visual effects.

5.109 Overall, Tyler Grange have established that, through the careful consideration of site proposals (in relation to baseline data and fieldwork) residual landscape and visual effects of proposed development of land to the west of Long Lane would be mostly localised. The most significant visual effects will be experienced from the site’s immediate surroundings and proposed development would have a limited effect on the site’s wider landscape character. There are clear opportunities to protect and strengthen the existing boundary vegetation, which would be characteristic of the wider landscape character area. To represent a more significant impact, the development as proposed would have to cause substantial loss or unacceptable alteration to a number of valued components of landscape, including the introduction of elements that are both visually intrusive and uncharacteristic. Having undertaken a structured assessment, it is concluded that this is not the case.

5.110 Biodiversity Considerations - With regard to biodiversity, a phase 1 ecology survey by Rachel Hacking Ecology accompanies this planning application. The survey include a site investigation, which concluded that both sites in their current form and use has a low ecological value.

5.111 The ecology survey makes a number of recommendations to improve the biodiversity of the site, including appropriate planting to enhance local biodiversity as part of the proposals. The recommendations of the ecology survey have been addressed and incorporated into the landscaping proposals by Tyler Grange. As such, it is considered that the proposals would be acceptable from an ecological perspective.

5.112 Flood Risk – In terms of mitigating to and adapting to climate change, a flood risk assessment (FRA) accompanies this planning application.

5.113 The site is located within Flood Zone 1 at low risk of fluvial and tidal flooding.

5.114 The FRA by Waterco provides an assessment of the surface water run off that is likely to be generated by the proposed development, and how this can be managed on site in order to minimise the risk of flooding elsewhere. The FRA confirms that there is no risk of flooding from nearby watercourses, and that the general risk of flooding is low. There may be some risk of ground water flooding and surface water ponding within topographical depressions.

5.115 The FRA states that the existing site is greenfield and 100% permeable. The proposed development will increase the impermeable area of the site through the introduction of new buildings, driveways, parking areas and access roads. Surface water runoff calculations have shown that this results in increased surface water runoff rates and volumes.

5.116 The FRA recommends that the most practical option for surface water discharge is connection to watercourse at the south-western corner of the site. In order to ensure that the development does not increase flood risk elsewhere surface water runoff rates will be restricted to the greenfield 1 in 1 year runoff rate of 65l/s.

5.117 Attenuation storage will be provided to accommodate runoff volumes during the 1 % AEP + CCA event. Attenuation storage could be provided in the form of ponds, swales, attenuation tanks and / or oversized pipes. Flow control could be provided in the form of a hydrobrake or an orifice plate. Above ground storage systems such as ponds or swales will need to be lined to prevent groundwater ingress.

5.118 Finished floor levels would be set at a minimum of 300mm above surrounding ground levels to minimise any risk of potential groundwater flooding.

5.119 As such, it is not considered that the proposals would be at risk from flooding, nor would the proposals increase the risk of flood risk elsewhere.

5.120 Minimising Energy Consumption and Reducing Carbon Emissions - With regard to other climate change issues, such as minimising energy consumption and reducing carbon emissions, the layout and design of the proposed buildings on site are matters that are reserved for subsequent approval. However, an indicative site layout has been prepared along with a design and access statement in order to demonstrate design principles that would underpin any subsequent reserved matters planning application.

5.121 The development principles that have been followed seek, as far as possible, to ensure that all of the proposed dwellings are orientated to have a south facing aspect in order to maximise solar gain, particularly in the winter. This would enable the proposed dwellings to fully utilise natural daylight and solar heat to principal rooms within the proposed dwellings, as well as maximise the potential for on-site micro-energy generation. Having south facing roof slopes would provide an opportunity for placing solar panels on south facing roof faces, for example. The orientation and insulation of the proposed dwellings to have a southerly aspect

would provide opportunities to reduce energy consumption and in turn, reduce energy bills for prospective residents.

5.122 As such, the proposed development would be designed to keep energy consumption to a minimum, whilst maximising opportunities to utilise renewable sources of energy, in accordance with paragraphs 96 and 97 of the Framework.

Highway and Access Considerations

5.123 With regard to carbon emissions as a result of vehicular movements from the site, a transport assessment has been prepared by SCP Transport Consultants as required by paragraph 32 of the Framework. With regard to public transport provision, the site is located within good proximity to bus routes, as well as Chapel-en-le-Frith Railway Station.

5.124 The TA has assessed the impact of traffic arising from the scheme, assessing the following junctions:

• Proposed Site Access Options – Long Lane;

• Manchester Road / Long Lane Priority Controlled Junction; and

• B5470 Manchester Road / Crossings Road / Frith View Staggered Junction.

5.125 The assessments carried out by SCP show that all of the junctions have sufficient spare capacity to accommodate the anticipated level of traffic generated by the proposed development for all access options.

5.126 The council will note that access details are not being sought at reserved matters stage, however a range of access options have been considered and assessed by SCP. All access options are technically deliverable. It is therefore considered that should the LPA be minded to grant planning permission, then a Grampian condition could be attached which prevents development taking place until a suitable access and road linkage design has been submitted to, and approved by the LPA in consultation with the Highway Authority.

5.127 Having regard to the above, it is concluded that there is no highway or transport related reason to withhold planning permission for the scheme on highway safety grounds.

Heritage Assets

5.128 During pre-application discussions, the LPA informed the applicant that there was a Grade II listed farmhouse that adjoins the site to the west. The significance of this building and the impact of the proposals on that setting are set out in the accompanying heritage statement by Knights LLP. In addition, the heritage statement more broadly considers potential impact on other heritage assets in the Chapel-en-le-Frith area.

5.129 The boundary between the property and the site is already screened by existing mature trees and a new pond is proposed to the west of the site as part of the SUDS drainage strategy. In

addition, the proposed dwellings would be set back from the site boundaries and set within generous landscaped parklands in this location to minimise impact on any heritage asset.

5.130 As such, the heritage statement concludes that the proposal would have a neutral effect on the character, setting and significance of the heritage asset.

Section 106 Draft Heads of Terms

5.131 Should planning permission be granted, then the applicants would enter into a Section 106 Agreement that would include the following:

• On site affordable housing provision (30%) • Education contributions • Contributions towards off-site highway works • On site open space provision and maintenance • Contributions towards off site public open space provision

5.132 The above would be subject to the relevant obligations being CIL compliant and being required as a result of the development. The applicants will seek further discussions with High Peak Borough Council and Derbyshire County Council regarding section 106 contributions following submission of the planning application.

5.133 A draft heads of terms document accompanies this application.

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 This outline planning application is submitted by Knights on behalf of Bank Hall Drive Developments for around 250 dwellings. The site is located to the west of Long Lane (and west of the railway line) and to the south of Chapel-en-le-Frith High School; see the accompanying site location plan (drawing number ROB390/2-001).

6.2 This planning application is submitted in outline form, with all matters reserved for subsequent approval, however an indicative masterplan accompanies the planning application to demonstrate layout principles. In addition, an access appraisal has been prepared by SCP (transport consultants) to demonstrate that safe and suitable points of access can be achieved in a variety of locations around the site.

6.3 The application red edge covers the land under the control of the applicant only. The supporting information by SCP demonstrates that access can be achievable, and as such, should the council be minded to grant planning permission, Grampian conditions should be attached to the decision notice in order to secure the appropriate access. It should be noted here on this specific point that the test of the Framework is whether or not a site is suitable, available and achievable. In this case, the proposal demonstrates that access is achievable. The site is otherwise considered to be suitable and available for development, as evidenced in the SHLAA and Landscape Impact Assessment, evidence documents for which have been submitted with the emerging High Peak Local Plan, which is currently subject to examination in public. The merits of the proposal will be set out in more detail later on in this statement.

6.4 This planning application has been informed by pre-application discussions with High Peak Borough Council officers, as well as a pre-application community engagement exercise.

6.5 A request for a formal screening opinion under the 2010 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations was submitted to High Peak Borough Council dated 30/01/2015. The applicants concluded in the request for a screening opinion that the proposal would not comprise EIA development. A response from High Peak Borough Council is awaited.

6.6 This planning submission includes the following documents: • Planning application forms • A site location plan by Knights LLP • An existing site survey by Survey Systems • A concept masterplan by MCK Architects (submitted for indicative purposes only) • A design and access statement by Knights LLP • A phase 1 ground investigation by GRM • A phase 1 ecology survey by Rachel Hacking Ecology • An access appraisal by SCP • A landscape framework and masterplan by Tyler Grange • A landscape and visual impact assessment by Tyler Grange • A statement of community engagement by MMB Studios

6.7 This statement has assessed the development plan and its conformity with the Framework, and assesses whether the proposed development would accord with the development plan and whether or not the proposal would comprise sustainable development.

6.8 In addition, this statement has assessed the proposed development against the emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan for Chapel-en-le-Frith, which has been submitted for examination. The council has appointed an Inspector to conduct the examination, however at the time of writing, the date of the start of the examination has yet to be confirmed.

6.9 In this case, this statement has considered the proposals in the context of the adopted development development plan, the emerging Local Plan and the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

6.10 This statement has assessed the development plan and its conformity with the Framework, and concludes that the development plan is out of date, particularly with regard to housing policies and the five year housing land supply.

6.11 With regard to the emerging Neighbourhood Plan, this has yet to be adopted, however recent decisions by the Secretary of State suggest that the emerging Neighbourhood Plan should carry weight in the determination of planning applications. In this case, it is concluded that this application must be determined on its own merits, and the Neighbourhood Plan must be assessed on a policy by policy basis, given that the policies in the Chapel-en-le-Frith Neighbourhood Plan, in addition to the local development plan are materially different to those other authorities where the Secretary of State has determined those applications.

6.12 Firstly, in comparison to all of the cases cited in this statement, High Peak Borough Council has identified its objectively assessed needs of 420 – 470 dwellings per annum. At the recent examination to the High Peak Plan, notwithstanding future CLG projections to be published in February and notwithstanding their proposal for a constrained figure of 360 dwellings per annum, the council accepted that the full objectively assessed need for housing is 470 dwellings per annum.

6.13 With regard to the prematurity issues highlighted, it is necessary to consider the Framework, NPPG and the policies of the examination version of the NP in detail.

6.14 Firstly, looking at the NP itself, it has been through consultation stage with the council and has been submitted for examination. At the time of writing, the examination had yet to take place. The key NP policies concerning the principle of development are policies H1 and C1.

6.15 In the case of the NP policies, H1 does not define a settlement boundary, nor does it define allocated sites on a proposals map. In addition, the wording of the policy is clear – policy H1 states that land is allocated for a minimum of 454 new homes. The plan does not on its face prevent a greater number of houses from being accepted.

6.16 The supporting text to the policy states that a sustainability appraisal was conducted to determine the selection of sites. The main criteria for the appraisal were sites that were within 15 minute walk of a town or village centre; to minimise impact on conservation and biodiversity, and to minimise impact on the landscape.

6.17 A copy of the Chapel-en-le-Frith NP sustainability matrix is attached at Appendix 9. A total of 17 sites were assessed, although some sites were not taken forward in the neighbourhood plan as they were not available. In the case of the application site, the site was ranked 9th out of all of the sites assessed, and only scored two points less that the site referenced HS5 (ranked 8 th ) in policy H1 that is proposed to be allocated for housing. The application site is located adjacent to site HS5.

6.18 In the context of the supporting Transport Assessment by SCP, the site is located within 1200 metres of the town centre, and adjoins the High School and Leisure Centre. The site is also within 1200 metres of the railway station which provides links to Buxton, Stockport and Manchester. As such, the proposals would comply with the first of the main sustainability criteria.

6.19 With regard to minimising the impact on conservation and biodiversity, an ecology survey has been carried out by Rachel Hacking Ecology by a qualified ecological consultant. The study clearly demonstrates that the site is of low ecological value and that measures can be incorporated into the proposals, such as ponds, swales, trees and open green spaces to provide ecological corridors through the development. As such, there would be minimal impact on matters of conservation and biodiversity, as well as opportunities to enhance ecological features.

6.20 With regard to minimising impact on the landscape, it should be noted that in the council’s Landscape Impact Assessment by Wardell Armstrong (which forms part of the council’s evidence base) that the site was identified as being an appropriate site in landscape terms that could accommodate development. The site was identified as P19. The Landscape Impact Assessment stated that development of the site would have “low visual impact ” and a “low effect on the setting of the National Park” . In addition, an LVIA has been produced by Tyler Grange which accompanies this application.

6.21 Overall, it has been established that, through the careful consideration of site proposals (in relation to baseline data and fieldwork) residual landscape and visual effects of proposed development of land to the west of Long Lane would be mostly localised. The most significant visual effects will be experienced from the site’s immediate surroundings and proposed development would have a limited effect on the site’s wider landscape character. There are clear opportunities to protect and strengthen the existing boundary vegetation, which would be characteristic of the wider landscape character area. To represent a more significant

impact, the development as proposed would have to cause substantial loss or unacceptable alteration to a number of valued components of landscape, including the introduction of elements that are both visually intrusive and uncharacteristic. Having undertaken a structured assessment, it has been concluded that this would not be the case.

6.22 As such, in light of landscape considerations, there would be limited impact on the landscape and as such, the third sustainability criteria of H1 would not be materially compromised.

6.23 Turning now to prematurity, the cases summarised in this statement that have been determined by the Secretary of State raise objections relating to prematurity.

6.24 With regard to the determination of a planning application and the guidance contained within NPPG, paragraph 014 outlines the circumstances where it might be justifiable to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity. The guidance states the following:

b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area.

6.25 In this case Annex 1 of the Framework also needs to be considered, which states at paragraph 216 that:

From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

• The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);

• The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given; and

6.26 The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater weight that may be given).

6.27 In this case, the NP has completed its local planning authority publicity period, so there may be a case for stating that the proposal might be premature. However, in this case, we have NP policies that do not explicitly preclude development beyond the existing settlement boundary. In addition, the proposals would represent a housing development adjoining a settlement which is at the top of the settlement hierarchy and the main focus for growth in the emerging High Peak Local Plan.

6.28 Added to the above, consideration must be given to Framework paragraph 216 which identifies the weight to be afforded to emerging plans. Whilst the NP, and indeed the emerging LP have reached examination stage, consideration must also be given to the extent to which there are unresolved objections. The less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight they may be given.

6.29 In this case, it is necessary to look at the objections made (if any) during the NP consultation period.

6.30 Knights LLP have reviewed the representations made to the NP consultation during November 2014, which have been published on the HPBC web site. In total 327 individual representations were made to the plan by a range of individuals and organisations. Some of these representations make general comments on the plan, and others make representations on one or a number of policies contained within the NP.

6.31 In terms of the key policies that are relevant to these proposals, policies H1 and C1 have received a substantial number of comments. Upon reviewing the representations to these policies, there have been 191 objections (58.4% of all representations made to the plan) to policy H1 and 189 objections (57.8% of all representations made to the plan) to policy C1. The number of objections to policy H1 significantly outweigh any comments in support of it.

6.32 In terms of policy H1, a number of objections raised concerns with regards to housing numbers, and that a lower number of housing (notwithstanding that the figure is a minimum) would inhibit the sustainable growth of Chapel-en-le-Frith. Objections were also raised that this policy fails to take a long term view in terms of ensuring the new housing meets existing and future local need and demand. A large number of these objections appear to have been raised by individual residents, which implies that the plan does not have the full support of people living in the neighbourhood in terms of providing the amount of housing that residents wish to secure for future generations. Some representations also consider that the proposed NP housing numbers should be based upon the final adopted figure of the emerging High Peak Local Plan once it is adopted, and that the adoption of the NP should wait until High

Peak has a robust housing figure upon which neighbourhoods can then shape the required development in their area.

6.33 Given that there are substantial objections to policy H1 (which are material in planning terms), it is considered that this policy should be given less weight in accordance with paragraph 216 of the Framework.

6.34 Likewise, policy C1 is also subject to substantial objections from residents who consider that there is already a designated special landscape area around the town as defined in the saved High Peak Local Plan. In addition, many representations cite the fact that the evidence supporting the designation of an extensive special landscape area is limited, particularly with regard to High Peak Borough Council’s supporting evidence base concerning landscape. As such, given that the proposed special landscape area is subject to significant objections regarding the planning merits of such a designation, then it is considered that this policy should be given less weight in accordance with paragraph 216 of the Framework.

6.35 Further to the above, the Secretary of State has given significant weight to localism and the powers available for local people to shape development of their areas. The representations made to the examination version of the NP clearly demonstrate that the plan has been drafted in such a way that the majority of local residents, landowners and business owners who have made representations to the plan are against policies H1 and C1 and that the majority of residents who have made representations would like to see Chapel-en-le-Frith grow into a more sustainable community with additional housing to meet the needs of future generations. As such, given that more people object to policies H1 and C1 than support it, then the views of the majority should take precedence.

6.36 Having further regard to policies contained within the Framework, paragraph 198 of the Framework states that where a planning application conflicts with a NP, that planning permission should not normally be granted. The precise wording is as follows:

Where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted.

6.37 In this case, the NP has yet to be brought into force, and cannot be brought into force until it has passed the examination stage, proceeded to referendum and had a majority vote in favour before being adopted. As such, there is still a considerable amount of time to go before the plan is adopted. As such, it is not considered that the proposals can be refused under paragraph 198 at this stage.

6.38 Should the NP pass examination and referendum prior to the determination of this planning application, then it will be the case that the NP could be adopted in accordance with an out of date development plan (i.e. the extant LP). In the event that High Peak Borough Council are still unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, then relevant policies for the supply of housing would be considered to be out of date in accordance with paragraph 49 of the Framework. This would then trigger paragraph 49 of the Framework, which clearly states that:

Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless:

• Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, or

• Specific policies in this Framework indicate that development should be restricted.

6.39 In this regard, Schedule 9 of the 2011 Localism Act sets out additions and amendments to the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act and the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act. Part 2 of Schedule 9 of the Localism Act sets out amendments to Section 38 of the 2004 Act.

6.40 The 2011 Localism Act adds to subsection 3 of Section 38 “neighbourhood development plans which have been made in relation to that area” . In effect, once adopted, neighbourhood plans become part of the development plan.

6.41 Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (as amended) therefore requires that any future planning application within the neighbourhood plan area must be determined in accordance with the development plan (including adopted neighbourhood plans), unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

6.42 As such, should the NP be adopted prior to the determination of this application, then paragraph 14 would apply because the council is still unlikely to be in a position where it can demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. In this case, it is considered that the presumption in favour or sustainable development would still apply, given that NP areas are not listed as one of the restrictions under footnote 9 of paragraph 14.

6.43 In light of the above considerations regarding the continually evolving planning policy landscape concerning neighbourhood plans, it can be concluded that:

3. The context surrounding the Chapel NP is different to those that have already been considered in cases determined by the Secretary of State insofar as:

a. The council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply;

b. The council has identified its objectively assessed needs (and in the context of Hunston, cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply on this basis);

c. The site was not the least preferred option as stated within the sustainability appraisal carried out as part of the preparation of the NP;

d. The proposals would not be in direct conflict with policies H1 and C1;

the case when the Secretary of State considered the appeals referred to above;

f. Prematurity carries less weight in the balancing exercise in this case given the material nature of the objections raised and the overwhelming local objections and opposition to policies H1 and C1.

4. Should the plan be adopted, changes made to the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act mean that it would become part of the development plan. If the NP is adopted when the council still cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, the relevant policies for the supply of housing (including policy C1 in the context of the Cotswold High Court Judgement) contained within the NP cannot be considered up to date and the presumption in favour or sustainable development should still apply. NP designations are not subject to the exceptions listed under footnote 9 of Paragraph 14.

6.44 As such, the Framework carries with it a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which comprises a social, economic and environmental role. This statement has set out what the Framework seeks to achieve in terms of sustainable development how the proposed development would comply with the Framework in order to deliver sustainable development.

6.45 In summary, the proposed development is considered to be sustainable in the following respects:

• Economic – the proposal would: • Support a significant number of full time jobs in the construction sector; • Generate in excess of £15 million capital spending in terms of construction; • Over 1000 jobs would be supported through multiplier effects; • Generate greater economic activity resulting from residents occupying new homes and being in employment; • Potential to increase incomes in the area and the propensity to spend in locality can increase; • Make an important contribution to the ongoing competitiveness of Harpur Hill and maintaining the supply of labour to key local employers; • Generate an annual household retail expenditure in excess of £2.5 million per annum; • Result in over £1.5 million of New Homes Bonus contributions from central Government to spend locally on providing services and infrastructure; • Generate additional annual council tax revenues in excess of £300,000 per annum for High Peak Borough Council.

• Social – the proposal would: • Provide housing to meet the needs of present and future generations including affordable housing and homes for older people; • Provide additional support and custom for existing services and facilities • Provide on site public open space;

• Create a high quality built environment appropriate to the character of the locality;

• Environmental – the proposal would:

• Not result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land – the land is currently designated as grade 4 agricultural land (poor); • Not comprise development in the Green Belt, special landscape area, AONB, national park or SSSI; • Have a limited impact on the landscape confined to the local area and not the wider landscape; • Not destroy a site of high ecological value – the proposed development, through the provision of a suitable landscaping scheme, would provide opportunities to enhance biodiversity in the local area; • Not be sited within an area already at risk from flooding, nor would it increase the risk of flooding elsewhere; • Provide a housing layout that would be design to maximise solar gain. As a result, this would provide great potential in terms of reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions; • Not result in any adverse impact on the River Wye Special Area of Conservation; • Not result in the harm or loss of significance of designated heritage assets.

6.46 In conclusion on the above, it is considered that from a social and economic perspective that the proposed development would be sustainable. With regard to the environmental perspective, the site comprises low grade agricultural land that is not subject to any other statutory designation, other than being located on land currently designated as open countryside. The proposal would only have a localised impact on the landscape, and no other significant environmental harm has been identified. In summary, it is concluded that the proposal comprises sustainable development.

6.47 In accordance with paragraph 14 of the Framework, this statement has demonstrated that the proposed development would deliver significant benefits to the local area as set out above. As demonstrated by numerous planning decisions in the High Peak, the contribution that the proposal would make to the delivery of open market and affordable housing carries significant weight. Weighed against this in the overall planning balance is the loss of a greenfield site that is currently designated as open countryside.

6.48 The council have already acknowledged in their emerging development plan documents (and indeed previous local plan inquiries), that development of greenfield sites for housing are needed to meet current and future housing needs.

6.49 As such, this statement has robustly demonstrated that the benefits of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any harm (which is only considered to be landscape harm limited to the immediate locality) when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole. In addition, it is not considered that the proposal would set an undesirable precedent in a neighbourhood plan area. This application must be determined on its own

merits on a policy by policy basis, based on the weight that can be attached to the policies contained within the extant development plan and emerging development plan documents. In this case, the proposals clearly demonstrate that the proposals comprise sustainable development, and it is considered in this case that prematurity does not outweigh the benefits of the proposal when the individual facts of this case are considered in the round. In this case, the proposals do not directly conflict with the neighbourhood plan, and the substantial local opposition to policies H1 and C1 in the neighbourhood plan lessen the weight that can be given to them.

6.50 This statement clearly demonstrates that planning permission should be granted in accordance with Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act.

Alan Knott MTCP MRTPI Senior Planner Knights LLP

Carl Copestake BA (Hons) Dip. UPI MRTPI Partner Knights LLP

APPENDIX 1

Adrian Fisher The Belgrave Centre Director of Planning Stanley Place High Peak Borough Council Talbot Street Municipal Buildings Nottingham NG1 5GG Glossop Direct Line: 0115 971 2676 Derbyshire, SK13 8AF Fax: 0115 971 2404 Email: [email protected] Our Ref: EMP1030/475/22 Date: 26th March 2008

Dear Mr Fisher

I am writing with reference to your application of 25th September 2007 and further correspondence, applying for a direction under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 in respect of policies in the High Peak Local Plan (adopted March 2005).

The Secretary of State’s Direction is attached. Those policies not listed in the Direction will expire on 30th March 2008.

The Secretary of State’s assessment of whether saved policies should be extended is based upon the criteria set out in Planning Policy Statement 12 and the Department for Communities and Local Government Protocol on saving policies. The extension of saved policies listed in this Direction does not indicate that the Secretary of State would endorse these policies if presented to her as new policy. It is intended to ensure continuity in the plan-led system and a stable planning framework locally, and in particular, a continual supply of land for development.

Local planning authorities (LPAs) should not suppose that a regulatory local plan style approach will be supported in forthcoming Development Plan Documents (DPDs). LPAs should adopt a positive spatial strategy led approach to DPD preparation and not seek to reintroduce the numerous policies of many local plans.

The exercise of extending saved policies is not an opportunity to delay DPD preparation. LPAs should make good progress with local development frameworks according to the timetables in their local development schemes. Policies have been extended in the expectation that they will be replaced promptly and by fewer policies in DPDs. Maximum use should be made of national and regional policy especially given the advanced position of many regional spatial strategies and the development plan status of the Regional Spatial Strategy.

Following 30th March 2008 the extended policies should be read in context. Where policies were adopted some time ago, it is likely that material considerations, in particular the emergence of new national and regional policy and also new evidence, will be afforded considerable weight in decisions. In particular, we would draw your attention to the importance of reflecting policy in Planning Policy Statement 3 Housing and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments in relevant decisions.

Signed by authority of the Secretary of State

Karin Staples Head of Housing and Planning Team Sustainable Communities Directorate

DIRECTION UNDER PARAGRAPH 1(3) OF SCHEDULE 8 TO THE PLANNING AND

COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004

POLICIES CONTAINED IN THE HIGH PEAK LOCAL PLAN ADOPTED MARCH 2005

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act

2004 directs that for the purposes of the policies specified in the Schedule to this direction, paragraph 1(2)(a) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 does not apply.

Signed by authority of the Secretary of State

Karin Staples Head of Housing and Planning Team Sustainable Communities Directorate Government Office for the East Midlands 26th March 2008

SCHEDULE POLICIES CONTAINED IN THE HIGH PEAK LOCAL PLAN ADOPTED MARCH 2005

POLICY POLICY NAME/DESCRIPTION NUMBER GD.2 BUILT-UP AREA BOUNDARIES GD.3 IMPROVEMENT CORRIDORS GD.4 CHARACTER, FORM AND DESIGN GD.5 AMENITY GD.6 LANDSCAPING GD.7 CRIME PREVENTION GD.12 UNSTABLE LAND, LANDFILL AND CONTAMINATED SITES GD.13 BUXTON MINERAL WATER OC.1 COUNTRYSIDE DEVELOPMENT OC.2 GREEN BELT DEVELOPMENT OC.3 SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREA DEVELOPMENT OC.4 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND DESIGN OC.5 DEVELOPMENT CONSPICUOUS FROM THE PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK OC.6 AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT OC.8 SITES OF NATURE CONSERVATION IMPORTANCE OC.10 TREES AND WOODLAND BC.1 EXTERNAL MATERIALS BC.2 SHOP FRONTS BC.3 SECURITY MEASURES BC.5 CONSERVATION AREAS AND THEIR SETTINGS BC.6 DEMOLITION IN CONSERVATION AREAS BC.7 ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS TO LISTED BUILDINGS BC.8 SETTINGS OF LISTED BUILDINGS BC.9 DEMOLITION OF LISTED BUILDINGS BC.10 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND OTHER HERITAGE FEATURES BC.11 HISTORIC PARKS AND GARDENS TC.1 TOWN CENTRES TC.2 TOWN CENTRE ENVIRONMENT TC.3 LARGE STORES TC.4 LARGE STORES WHICH CANNOT BE LOCATED IN EXISTING TOWN CENTRES TC.5 SMALL SHOPS TC.6 RETENTION OF LOCAL CENTRES AND VILLAGE SHOPS

POLICY POLICY NAME/DESCRIPTION NUMBER TC.9 THE EVENING ECONOMY – PUBS, CLUBS AND TAKEAWAYS TC.10 CAR PARKING AND TOWN CENTRE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS TC.11 REGENERATION AREAS IN GLOSSOP TC.12 PRIME RETAIL FRONTAGE TC.13 TORR VALE MILL REGENERATION AREA TC.14 REGENERATION AREA AT HOGS YARD TC.15 REGENERATION AREAS AT BUXTON H.1 NEW HOUSING PROVISION H.2 HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN GLOSSOPDALE H.4 HOUSING IN BUXTON H.5 HOUSING WITHIN THE BUILT-UP AREA BOUNDARIES H.9 AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LOCAL NEEDS H.10 RURAL ‘EXCEPTIONS’ AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LOCAL NEEDS H.11 LAYOUT AND DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT H.12 PUBLIC LOCAL OPEN SPACE H.13 REPLACEMENT DWELLINGS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE H.14 DOMESTIC EXTENSIONS AND ANCILLARY BUILDINGS H.15 SUB-DIVISION OF EXIS TING DWELLINGS H.16 HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION H.17 GYPSY SITES EMP.1 INDUSTRY AND BUSINESS ALLOCATIONS IN THE GLOSSOP AREA EMP.2 INDUSTRY AND BUSINESS ALLOCATIONS IN THE CENTRAL AREA EMP.3 INDUSTRY AND BUSINESS ALLOCATIONS IN THE BUXTON AREA EMP.4 PRIMARY EMPLOYMENT ZONES EMP.5 OPEN STORAGE AND PROCESSING EMP.6 INDUSTRY AND BUSINESS WITHIN THE BUILT-UP AREA BOUNDARIES AND HOMEWORKING EMP.7 INDUSTRY AND BUSINESS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE EMP.8 INFILLING/REDEVELOPMENT AT MAJOR DEVELOPED SITES IN THE GREEN BELT EMP.9 CHANGE OF USE FROM INDUSTRY OR BUSINESS LT.3 PROTECTION OF RECREATIONAL LAND AND FACILITIES LT.4 NEW RECREATION FACIL ITIES LT.5 HORSE RIDING FACILITIES, STABLES AND RID ING SCHOOLS LT.6 GOLF COURSES LT.7 INTENSIVE OUTDOOR RECREATION LT.8 AIR, MOTORISED AND SHOOTING SPORTS LT.10 BUXTON’S SPA HERITAGE LT.11 CANALS AND CANAL BASINS LT.13 TOURING CARAVAN AND CAMP SITES

POLICY POLICY NAME/DESCRIPTION NUMBER CF.2 LOCAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES CF.3 SCHOOL AND COLLEGE FACILITIES CF.4 CHILDCARE FACILITIES CF.5 RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES CF.7 TELECOMMUNICATIONS CF.10 RENEWABLE ENERGY CF.11 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING TR.1 TRANSPORT IMPLICATIONS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT TR.2 A57/A628(T) MOTTRAM –TINTWISTLE BY-PASS & A57 GLOSSOP SPUR TR.3 LOCAL ROAD SCHEMES TR.4 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TR.5 ACCESS, PARKING AND DESIGN TR.7 NEW RAILWAY INFRASTRUCTURE TR.9 DISUSED RAILWAY LINES TR.11 FOOTPATHS, BRIDLEWAYS AND BYWAYS TR.13 LONG DISTANCE AND LOCAL TRAILS TR.14 THE PROTECTION AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRAILS

Dear Mr Fisher

High Peak Local Plan Extended Saving Of Policy H.1

I am writing to you in connection with the Direction that has been issued today to extend the saving of certain policies in the High Peak Local Plan, with particular reference to Policy H.1 Principles of Housing. The decision to extend the saving of policies has been taken after careful consideration of the issues, and you will be aware that we have raised concerns with you that the approach to managing the supply of housing in Policy H.1 is not consistent with the approach to delivering and managing a supply of land for housing as set out in PPS3. Linked to this, I would also remind you that in determining planning applications for housing, you should have regard to the policies in PPS3 which may supersede the policies in the development plan.

In order to move swiftly to a suite of up to date policies to guide development in the Borough, we would urge you to prioritise the preparation of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document. We are pleased to note that you have agreed to prepare a joint Core Strategy with Derbyshire Dales District Council, and hope that this will benefit both of your authorities in terms of making more efficient and effective use of your combined resources.

Yours sincerely

Karin Staples Head of Housing and Planning Team Sustainable Communities Directorate

APPENDIX 2 Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 3719 (Admin) Case No: CO/3629/2013 CO/3626/2013 CO/7880/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT BIRMINGHAM

Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 27/11/2013

Before :

MR JUSTICE LEWIS ------Between :

Cotswold District Council Applicant - and - Secretary of State for Communities and Local First Respondent Government Second Respondent Fay and Son Limited ~

Cotswold District Council Applicant - and - Secretary of State for Communities and Local First Respondent Government

Hannick Homes and Development Limited Second Respondent ~

The Queen on the application of Cotswold District Claimant Council - and- Secretary of State for Communities and Local Defendant Government

Hannick Homes and Development Limited Interested Party

------

Ms S Sheikh and Mr G Mackenzie (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard ) for the Claimant (in all cases) Mr R Kimblin (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor ) for the Secretary of State (First Defendant) (in all cases) Miss M Cook (instructed by Coffin Mew LLP ) for the Second Defendant in the first case Mr Peter Goatley (instructed by Davies & Partners ) for the Second Defendant in the second case

Hearing dates: 6th & 7 th November 2013 ------

Judgment Mr Justice Lewis :

1. These are two applications to quash decisions of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government granting planning permission for development in the Tetbury area of Gloucestershire and one application for judicial review of a decision making a partial award of costs in one of the cases. By the first decision (“the Highfield decision”) dated 13 February 2013, the Secretary of State allowed an appeal by Fay & Son Ltd. (“Fay”) against the refusal by the Council, Cotswold District Council, of outline permission for a residential development for up to 250 units and related development on land at Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire. By the second decision (“the Berrells Road decision”) dated 13 February 2013, the Secretary of State allowed an appeal by Hannick Homes and Development Ltd. (“Hannick”) against the refusal by the Council of outline permission for a residential development of up to 39 units and related development on land at Berrells Road, on the edge of Tetbury, Gloucestershire. Both sites are within an Area of Outstanding National Beauty (“AONB”).

2. Both decisions involved consideration of whether the Council had demonstrated that it had a supply of land sufficient to meet their housing requirements for the next five years. As part of the assessment of that requirement, the Secretary of State accepted the inspector’s recommendation that the housing requirement should be based on the lower of two estimates of need, derived from figures produced as part of the preparation of a draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (“the RSS”) which indicated a need for 2,022 houses over the next five years. The Secretary of State considered that, applying the principles contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”), an additional buffer of 20% (rather than the 5% that would otherwise be added) should be added to the RSS figures as the Council had a record of persistent under delivery of housing. That resulted in an additional 402 houses being added to the figure of 2,022 to give a total requirement of 2,426. The Secretary of State accepted the inspector’s recommendation that the Council did not have a five year supply of land capable of providing sufficient sites for that housing requirement.

3. One of the Council’s principal grounds of challenge relates to another decision, given on 9 January 2013, of an inspector who allowed an appeal against a refusal of permission at another site at Top Farm, Kemble, Cirencester (the Kemble decision). That site is in a different town from the Highfield and the Berrells Road sites. The Kemble site is not in an AONB. In the Kemble decision, the inspector accepted that the number of houses proposed as part of the draft RSS process was the best minimum indication of the housing figure requirement for the next five years. He was not persuaded that it was necessary to apply the 20% buffer (rather than the 5%) in the circumstances of that case. He concluded that the Council could not demonstrate that it had a sufficient five year supply of sites even for that lower figure. He concluded that planning permission should therefore be granted. The inspector reached his conclusion that there had not been a persistent under delivery of housing solely by reference to the figures for housing requirements set out in the Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review (“the Structure Plan”) for 1991 to 2011 although he made it clear that that conclusion was based on a Structure Plan that was now defunct and that those past figures were not a reliable guide to future need.

4. The inspector’s decision on Kemble was not drawn to the Secretary of State’s attention. The Council contends, however, that the inspector’s reasoning in the

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

Kemble decision in relation to the calculation of housing requirements, and in particular his decision not to add a 20% buffer because he was not satisfied that there had been a record of persistent under delivery, was a material consideration to which the Secretary of State should have had regard when reaching his decisions in relation to Highfield and Berrells Road. The Council contends that the Secretary of State acted unlawfully in reaching those decisions without having regard to the Kemble decision and without explaining why he was differing from the inspector in the Kemble decision. The Council also contends that the Secretary of State misinterpreted the relevant policy in paragraph 47 of the Framework in a variety of ways.

5. Finally, the Council seeks permission to apply for judicial review to challenge the decision of the Secretary of State to accept the recommendation of the inspector to make a partial award of costs in the Berrells Road appeal as the Council had acted unreasonably to the extent that it maintained that it could demonstrate a five year supply of housing. The Council relies on the fact that the inspector did not award costs in the Kemble decision. The Council submits that the decision of the Secretary of State that the conduct of the Council was unreasonable is itself irrational and that the Secretary of State failed to have regard to a material consideration, namely the decision on costs of the inspector in the Kemble decision.

THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK

The Legislation

6. Planning permission is required for development including, as here, residential development involving the building of residential homes and related building operations: see section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”). Section 70 (2) of that Act provides that where an application for planning permission is made to a local planning authority, then:

“(2) In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to

(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,

(b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and

7. The development plan is defined in section 38(3) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”). Further, section 38(6) of that Act provides that:

“(6) If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

8. In the present case, the development plan included the Regional Strategy for the South West, certain policies of the Structure Plan and certain policies of the Cotswold Local Plan. The Structure Plan covered the period 1991 to 2011. The relevant housing policies provided that 6,150 houses would need to be provided in the Cotswold District Council area between 1991 and 2011. That equated to the provision of 307.5 houses per annum.

9. The material considerations relevant to any planning application include the Framework. That document should be read in its entirety. Paragraph 2 provides that the Framework must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans and is a material consideration in planning decision. Paragraph 6 explains that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to sustainable development and the policies set out in paragraphs 18 to 219 of the Framework constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system. Paragraph 7 explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The social dimension includes “supporting strong, vibrant healthy communities by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations”.

10. Section 6 of the Framework deals with delivering a wide choice of high quality homes. Paragraph 47 is of particular importance to these appeals and provides as follows:

“To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should:

• use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period;

• 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) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land;

• identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15;

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

• for market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing describing how they will maintain delivery of a five- year supply of housing land to meet their housing target; and

• set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.”

11. Paragraph 47 is directed towards the obligations of local planning authorities in preparing their development plans. However, the Structure Plan in the present case expired in 2011. The Council has not yet adopted a Local Plan identifying its housing requirements for the next local plan period or the next five years. In dealing with a planning application, however, the Council, and an inspector or the Secretary of State on an appeal, will have to address the question of what the Council’s five-year housing requirement is likely to be and whether the Council has significant supply of housing land to meet that requirement as that will be a material consideration in considering whether planning permission should be granted.

12. Paragraph 49 of the framework provides that:

“Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up- to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”

13. The presumption referred to in the first sentence of that paragraph does not apply to the applications for planning permission in Highfield and Berrells Road as they are in an AONB (see paragraph 14 and footnote 9 of the Framework). The second sentence is applicable.

14. As both Highfield and Berrells Road are within an AONB paragraph 115 of the Framework is applicable. That provides that:

“Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads.”

15. Paragraph 116 of the Framework applies to the application for planning permission in Highfield (but not Berrells Road) as the Highfields application involves major development. That paragraph provides that:

“Planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of:

• the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;

• the cost of, and scope for developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and

• any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated. ”

16. The other material policy for present purposes is Policy 19 of the Local Plan. That restricted development, including housing development, outside existing development boundaries.

THE FACTS

17. The Highfield application for outline planning permission for residential development of up to 250 units was made on 8 March 2011 and refused by the Council on 23 November 2011. Fay appealed. The Secretary of State decided to determine the appeal himself. He appointed an inspector to conduct an inquiry and report. The Berrells Road application for outline planning permission for 39 units was made on 16 January 2012 and refused on 26 March 2012. Hannick appealed. The Secretary of State again decided to determine the appeal himself and appointed an inspector (the same inspector that was appointed in the Highfield appeal) to hold an inquiry and report.

18. Inquiries were held in both appeals and the inspector, Jessica Graham, submitted reports on the Highfield application and the Berrells Road application to the Secretary of State on 9 November 2102. Both reports are careful, detailed examinations of the issues and should be read in their entirety.

19. In the Highfield report, the inspector dealt with procedural matters, the site and surroundings, the planning history and the proposal. The inspector then correctly identified the relevant planning policies and dealt with other matters. At section 8, the inspector dealt with the case for the Council and at section 9 of her report she dealt with the case for Fay. At sections 10 and 11 of her report, the inspector dealt with oral and written representations made by others. Sections 12 and 13 deal with planning obligations and conditions. The inspector’s conclusions come at section 14.

20. At paragraph 14.2, the inspector said this:

“The proposed development would fundamentally conflict with adopted Development Plan policies aimed at restricting residential development on land which, like the appeal site, lies outside any settlement boundary and inside an AONB.

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

However, Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. This involves firstly establishing the housing requirement for the next five years, and then going on to assess whether sufficient deliverable sites are available to meet that need.”

21. The inspector set out the Council’s proposed approach to the issue of establishing its housing requirements for five years. The Council proposed projecting forward the requirements set out in the (now expired) 1991-2011 Structure Plan of 307.5 houses a year for five years. In addition, the Council recognised that, over the period of the Structure Plan, there had been a shortfall of 89 houses provided (the Structure Plan had contemplated a figure of 6,150 houses being provided but 6,061 had been provided). The Council proposed adding a figure of 89 houses over five years (17.8 houses a year) to the total required. That would, on the Council’s case, have established a housing requirement of 1,626.5 over the next five years or 325.3 annually for each of the next five years. The Council then considered whether it could demonstrate a five year supply of land to meet its suggested housing requirement in order to assess whether or not planning permission for the proposed development would be required to meet any housing need.

22. The inspector did not accept that approach. She noted at paragraph 14.7 that the Structure Plan was only intended to cover the period 1991 to 2011 and was based on household projections dating from 1996. The inspector considered that other, more recent projections of housing need should be considered in assessing the Council’s housing requirements for the next five years.

23. The inspector considered that the evidence used for the preparation of a new draft regional strategy had been considered and tested at an examination in public. While the draft strategy itself was unlikely to proceed to adoption for other reasons, and so should be given little weight, the evidence upon which it had been based had been thoroughly tested and carried considerable weight. That indicated a five year housing requirement for the period 2012 to 2017 of 2,022 houses. The inspector considered in addition the 2010 Department of Communities and Local Government household projections. These indicated a requirement of 3,199 houses over the next five years. The inspector’s conclusion and reasoning on these issues are set out at paragraphs 14.15 to 14.18 of the Highfield Report (and are not challenged in these proceedings). Those paragraphs say:

“14.15 Nevertheless, for the purpose of reporting on this appeal, I am obliged to arrive at a conclusion on the Council’s current ability to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. For the reasons set out above I hold the housing requirement figure contained in the Structure Plan to be so out of date as to be unfit for that purpose, and while I recognise the local GCC projections will have a valuable role to play as part of the overall evidence base for the district’s emerging Local Plan, I consider that it would be premature to rely upon them at this early stage in that process.

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

14.16 I conclude that the District’s five year housing requirement figure is likely to lie somewhere between the 2,022 dwellings derived from draft RSSW Proposed Changes, and the 3,199 dwellings derived from the most recently published DCLG national household projections. Since I have insufficient evidence to inform any attempt at assessing whereabouts within that range the actual requirement might lie, I will use the figure at the lowest end of the spectrum.

14.17 I need to make it absolutely clear that this conclusion should not be confused with an endorsement of that figure as representing the objectively assessed housing need for the district. My decision to use the draft RSSW figure is made on the premise that if a five year housing supply cannot even be demonstrated against the lowest credible housing requirement, then it clearly does not exist. That is the same premise that informed my findings in the Moreton in Marsh appeal: the Council was unable to demonstrate a five year supply against the Structure Plan housing requirement, and since the evidence of the more recently published projections suggested that the housing requirement was likely to increase rather than decrease, that could only worsen the shortfall in housing provision.

14.18 I can understand local residents’ frustration with the amount of time taken up at the inquiry (and consequently in this report) in dealing with complex considerations of housing supply. The approach I am here obliged to adopt is a product of the wholly unsatisfactory circumstances that arise when a local planning authority fails to keep its Development Plan up to date, such that its housing requirement must instead be deduced from the best of the evidence made available to the decision maker.”

24. Before considering whether the Council could demonstrate an adequate supply of land, the inspector noted, correctly, that it was necessary to have regard to the second bullet point of paragraph 47 which is set out at paragraph 10 above.

25. The inspector noted that the phrase “persistent under delivery” is not defined. A number of methods of testing whether there had been persistent under delivery were considered. The inspector noted a decision in a different local planning authority appeal which considered that completions over the past five years were the most relevant to an assessment of the planning authority’s delivery record. The inspector agreed that, as the Framework was looking forward five years at future housing needs, it was reasonable to look back five years in assessing whether there had been a record of persistent under delivery. The Council, in its evidence, had in fact invited the inspector to consider the figures over a four year period. The inspector noted that at a different inquiry within the Council’s area, an inspector had considered the position over the last 10 years. On that basis, there had been a shortfall in 7 out of 10 years using one measure ( the number of permissions granted against the annual targets for those years) and in 8 out of 10 years using a second measure (housing completions in

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

those years against the annualised figure of houses required). The inspector in that other inquiry noted that on those two measures, the Council’s record was one of under delivery (although the inspector in that case did not characterise the situation as one of “persistent” under delivery). The inspector in the present case also noted that, in the 1991 to 2011 Structure Plan period, there had been a shortfall of 89 houses as against the identified requirements for that 20 year period.

26. The inspector’s conclusions on this issue were, effectively, summarised at paragraphs 14.19 to 14.24 in the following terms:

“14.19 Before moving on to consider housing supply, it is necessary to have regard to the second bullet point at paragraph 47 of the Framework. This explains that local planning authorities should not only be able to identify sufficient sites to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements, but also an additional buffer of 5%, to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. It goes on to state that where there has been a record of persistant under delivery of housing, this buffer should be increased to 20%.

14.20 “Persistent under delivery” is not further defined in the Framework, or elsewhere. In an appeal decision concerning Sellars Farm in Stroud, the Inspector held that completions over the past five years were the most relevant to a consideration of the Council’s delivery record. On the basis that the Framework requires the assessment of future housing delivery to look forward five years, looking back five years to assess the record of past delivery, seems to me a reasonable approach. The Inspector in that case concluded that a total shortfall of around 360 dwellings, during a period affected by recession, did not amount to a record of persistent under delivery. I note CDC’s contention that it has a better performance record than that, in terms of its shortfall over the past five years.

14.21 My attention was also drawn to an appeal decision at Siddington, of particular relevance since it is within the Cotswold District. The Inspector noted that there was under delivery in 7 out of the last 10 years, with an identified shortfall of 89 dwellings over the period 1991-2012; and that in terms of housing completions, the target has not been met for eight out of the past ten years. She went on to state that the difficulties with housing delivery in the District have extended to the period well before the current economic downturn, and that on two measures looking back over the past 10 years, the Council’s record is one of under delivery. The Council has not here put forward any evidence that contradicts those findings, and I have no reason to doubt their accuracy.

14.22 Turning to the evidence presented in this current case, the Council and the appellant have both adopted the approach of measuring past completions against the annualised Structure

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

Plan requirement. Last year saw 538 housing completions, which provided some compensation for the fact that in each of the four preceding years delivery had fallen short of the requirement. It was short by a very wide margin in 2009/2010, which saw only 177 completions. Since the Structure Plan requirement is itself an average annual target, I consider it reasonable to allow for some fluctuations above and below that figure, by looking at the average annual completions over the last five years. On that basis the Council’s completions rate, at 291 dwellings per year, also falls short of its own housing requirement.

14.23 A further consideration is that it would not be fair, in the context of assessing the Council’s record of delivering housing, simply to ignore the fact that delivery here is being measured against a housing requirement that was artificially low; being based (as I have discussed at length above) on projections that were out of date. That being the case, the resulting shortfall in housing delivery will in real terms have been considerably greater than that calculated by measuring completions against the Structure Plan requirement.

14.24 Taking all of this into account, I conclude that there has been persistent under-delivery of housing in the Cotswold district, and so an additional buffer of 20% should be added. This increases the five year housing requirement figure derived from the draft RSSW to 2,426 dwellings over the next five years.”

27. Put shortly, the inspector looked at a variety of time frames in considering if there had been a record of under delivery. She considered delivery against the figures provided for in the Structure Plan. On a 5 year basis, there was under delivery in 4 out of the 5 years. On a 10 year basis, there was a shortfall in 7 out of 10 years using one measure and 8 out of 10 years using a second measure. Looking at the plan period as a whole, there was a short fall on the Structure Plan figure of 89. Furthermore, the inspector considered that the under delivery against the Structure Plan figures underestimated the extent to which there had been a shortfall in meeting the real requirements for housing during the Structure Plan period as that Plan itself understated the need. The inspector had already noted that the Structure Plan figures were based on 1996 projections whereas the figures in the draft regional strategy had been published in 2008 and the other projections were the 2010 projections.

28. In the circumstances, therefore, the inspector took the lowest likely figure of housing requirements of 2,022 houses and added 20% (rather than the 5% otherwise provided for in paragraph 49 of the Framework). That provided a housing requirement for the next five years of 2,426 houses.

29. The inspector then considered the supply of housing sites that the Council could demonstrate existed. On the evidence in the Highfield inquiry, the Council had sufficient sites to deliver 1,711 houses over the next five years. That amounted to a very serious shortfall. The inspector noted that the evidence in the Berrells Road

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

inquiry was that the Council could provide sites for 1,828 houses (rather than 1,711) but the Inspector did not consider that that difference materially altered the conclusion that there would be a very serious shortfall.

30. The inspector then worked through the consequences of her conclusion that there was not a five year supply of housing land. Paragraph 49 of the Framework meant that policies relevant to the supply of housing should not be considered up to date. Thus Policy 19 of the Local Plan, so far as it sought to restrict housing outside existing development boundaries, was to be considered out of date. Further, the serious shortfall in the supply of housing land was a material consideration that weighed heavily in favour of allowing the proposed development (see paragraphs 14.43 and 14.46 of the inspector’s report). The inspector then considered a number of other matters, including the effect of the proposed development of the AONB and paragraphs 115 and 116 of the Framework (which are set out in paragraphs 14 and 15 above). The inspector noted that there was a pressing need for the houses proposed and there was very limited scope to provide residential development on sites not within the AONB. The inspector concluded at paragraph 14.69:

“While I consider that the proposed development would not harm the setting of the historic town of Tetbury, I find that it would detract from the significance of Highfield Farmhouse, a designated heritage asset. It would also harm the AONB through replacing open fields with built development, thereby resulting in the loss of some of the natural beauty of the landscape. But importantly, in terms of the harm that would be caused to the AONB, I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest that there is anything other than very limited scope indeed to provide housing within the District on sites that are not part of the AONB. Moreover, there is a clear and pressing need for more housing; locally, in terms of the severe shortfall that currently exists in the Cotswold District, and nationally, in terms of the need to get the economy growing. In my view, these amount to exceptional circumstances, where permitting the proposed development can reasonably be considered to meet the wider “public interest”, in the terms of the framework.”

31. The inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed and that outline planning permission be granted subject to certain specified conditions.

32. On 9 November 2012, the same inspector submitted a report on the Berrells Road application. That, too, is a thorough, careful consideration of the evidence in that appeal. The analysis of the five year housing requirement and the available supply of housing land is in materially identical terms to the Highfield report (save for one paragraph dealing with the relevance of the fact that there was an economic recession during part of the period of the Structure Plan, a point which I deal with below). The inspector considered the impact on the AONB and paragraph 115 of the Framework (paragraph 116 was not applicable as the Berrells Road appeal does not involve major development within the meaning of that paragraph). Again, the inspector recommended allowing the appeal and the grant of outline planning permission subject to certain specified conditions.

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

33. The two reports were then considered by the Secretary of State. By letters dated 13 February 2013, the Secretary of State in each case accepted the reasoning and the recommendations of the inspector. He allowed the appeals and granted outline planning permission subject to conditions.

34. After the inspector had submitted her reports in the Highfield and Berrells Road appeals, but before the Secretary of State had issued his decision, another inspector made a decision allowing an appeal in relation to another refusal of planning permission. That appeal concerned a refusal by the Council to grant permission to Kemble Farms Ltd. for residential development comprising up to 50 dwellings. That related to a site in Cirencester, not Tetbury (as was the case in Highfield and Berrells Road). The Kemble site was not in an AONB. Under paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 of the 1990 Act, regulations may be made prescribing classes of appeals under section 78 of the 1990 Act which may be determined by a person appointed by the Secretary of State. This appeal was one such case. The inspector in the Kemble appeal was therefore appointed to determine the appeal, not merely to report and make recommendations to the Secretary of State.

35. By a decision dated 9 January 2013, the inspector allowed the appeal in the Kemble appeal and granted planning permission. As the appeal involved an application for planning permission for residential permission, the Framework was a material consideration and questions of housing requirement for the next five years and the available supply of housing land were considered. The Council adopted the same approach as it had adopted in the Highfield and Berrells Road inquiries, namely that the Structure Plan figures for 1991 to 2011, together with the shortfall during that period, should be used as the basis for calculating present housing requirements. The inspector in Kemble did not have available to him the reports in Highfield or Berrells Road as they had been submitted to the Secretary of State but not published. Nevertheless, his conclusions and reasoning on all bar one relevant issue relating to housing was broadly similar to the inspector is in those cases. He considered that the evidence showed that housing need in the Council’s district was likely to be significantly higher than had been historically catered for by the Structure Plan. He considered that “any realistic needs based requirement is certainly going to be higher than the structure plan figure and likely to be at least at or above the draft revised RSS figure of 345 dwellings per annum”. He was not persuaded that it was necessary to add a 20% buffer and therefore added the 5% buffer referred to in the second bullet point of paragraph 47 of the Framework. On that basis, the inspector considered that the Council still could not demonstrate that there was a five-year supply of housing land to meet that housing requirement. The inspector therefore allowed the appeal and granted planning permission. The inspector’s reasoning on whether it was necessary to add a 20%, rather than a 5%, buffer is at paragraphs 104 to 106 which are in the following terms:

“104. A residual requirement left over from the structure period demonstrates that the lesser figure of 307.5 which took on board the principle of exporting housing need was not met, albeit the annual average delivery over the last four years was 312. That figure has been distorted by an exceptional delivery of 538 completions in 2011/2012 notwithstanding the economic downturn but in 2008/2009 the number of completions was

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

303. Following the general approach of the Inspector in the Sellars Farm case, I would be reluctant in the circumstances to conclude persistent under-delivery on those most recent figures, bearing in mind those economic difficulties. Moreover, while I note from the council’s housing trajectory that although there were only 209 completions in 2007/2008, the equivalent figure for 2006/07 was 316 and in that year the monitoring of the trajectory indicated 8.5 dwellings above the cumulative requirement to have been achieved. Excluding the most recent and exceptional delivery figure, the annual average for the period would be 247 completions per annum (1,235 dwellings over 5 years). However, the council’s 5 year supply calculation in CD 11 and the evidence of Mr Lewis, at paragraph 2.20, indicates that over the structure plan period as a whole (1991- 2011) the accumulated shortfall would be only 89 dwellings.

105. In considering whether there has been a record of persistent under delivery, it seems to me appropriate to consider adopted policy applying at the time (i.e. the structure plan requirement up to 2011), rather than speculations about future policy requirements, and to consider also the broader outcome rather than to focus on particular years where the annualised requirement has either not been met or has been exceeded. It seems to me that, notwithstanding the recent economic difficulties, the overall delivery has been sufficiently close to the structure plan requirement to avoid categorisation as a record of persistent under-delivery, as the appellant would have me conclude. The Council’s Residential Land Monitoring Statistics (CD12) show graphically the degree of annual fluctuation over the long run. I am not persuaded that it is necessary to apply the 20% buffer that the Framework requires in circumstances of persistent under-delivery.

106. That conclusion, however, is based on a policy requirement that should, for the reasons I have given, now be regarded as defunct. I am not persuaded that the past is a reliable guide to the future. In the absence of a definitive current policy requirement, figure based on projected needs are more pertinent. It is clear that some of the projection bases used in the discussions on this matter would result in very significant shortfalls against the requirement to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites and therefore the overall policy requirement in the context of objectively assessed needs must be resolved at the earliest opportunity if repeated disagreements at appeals over which figures to use are to be avoided.”

36. In other words, the inspector focussed on the figures in the Structure Plan figures as that was the policy in force until 2011. He focussed on overall outcome and considered that the overall delivery (with a shortfall of 89 over the structure plan period as a whole) was “sufficiently close” to the Structure Plan requirement to

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

“avoid categorisation as a record of persistent under-delivery”. In the event, however, that conclusion did not prove determinative or critical to his reasoning as, taking the realistic likely housing requirement for the next five years (and adding 5% as a buffer), the Council were still well short of demonstrating that it had a five year supply of housing land and permission should be granted. Further, it is clear that he regarded the Structure Plan requirement as no longer a suitable indication of future needs. He also noted that, given that the requirements contained in certain of the projections would result in very significant shortfalls of available housing land, there would be repeated disagreements at appeals over which figures to use unless the policy requirement were resolved on the basis of objectively assessed needs

37. There were applications for costs by Hannick in the Berrells Road appeal and by the developer in the Kemble appeal. There was no application for costs in the Highfield appeal. The relevant ground of the application for present purposes was that the Council acted unreasonably, within the meaning of paragraph A12 of the annex to the Department for Communities and Local Government Circular 03/2009 on Costs Awards in Appeals and Other Planning Proceedings, by relying on the Structure Plan figures for calculating its five year housing requirement. In her report of 9 November 2012 on costs, the inspector in the Berrell Fields report recommended a partial award of costs. The inspector considered in detail the reasons why she considered that the Council had erred in seeking to use those figures rather than considering more up to date evidence. She concluded at paragraphs 56 and 57 that:

“56. In summary, I consider that in the continued absence of any more recent Development Plan document setting out an updated figure, the housing requirement contained in the Structure Plan here remains, as it did in the Moreton in Marsh appeal, a useful starting point for considering the district’s housing supply position. But it is not reasonable to rely on that requirement alone, updated solely to incorporate previous shortfall in provision. As explained in the Framework, in its predecessor PPS 3, and in my report on the Moreton in Marsh appeal, it is necessary also to take account of up-to-date evidence provided by recent forecasts and projections. The evidence of all of the more recent forecasts and projections suggests that the districts housing requirement is higher than that derived by projecting forward the Structure Plan requirement. When assessed against the requirement figures derived from each of these more recent projections, the Council does not have a sufficient supply of sites to provide five years worth of housing.

57. I therefore conclude that it was unreasonable for the Council to maintain that it could demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. ”

38. The inspector considered that a considerable amount of the evidence prepared by Hannick, and of the time spent at the inquiry, was directly related to the Council’s contentions about the supply of housing land. To that extent Hannick had incurred unnecessary expense and a partial award of costs was therefore justified. The

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

Secretary of State accepted that recommendation in a decision letter of 25 March 2013 dealing with costs.

39. On 9 January 2013, the inspector in the Kemble appeal gave his decision on costs. The basis of the application was, again, in part that the Council acted unreasonably in persisting in relying on out of date figures in the Structure Plan in calculating its housing requirement. At paragraph 36, the inspector said:

“The choice of one figure rather than another by the Cotswold District Council is not so much “defiance” of the Secretary of State as recognition that, at present, there is no figure being imposed pending the Council’s resolution of an adequately tested policy figure upon which to base the necessary calculation of five year supply. Councils have the facility to decide for themselves, albeit on the expectation of deploying a defensible basis. Using the structure plan as a starting point is not wholly indefensible, notwithstanding the recent appeal decisions, and I have therefore concluded that it is misguided rather than inherently unreasonable. I am not obliged to follow other Inspectors if the evidence is sufficiently persuasive not to, but in this case it was not.”

40. At paragraphs 45 and 46, he concluded that:

“45. In view of all the above considerations, the circumstances of the appeal and having regard to the intentions of the Circular taken as a whole, I consider the balance to be marginally in favour, on this occasion, of the council’s conduct in relation to this matter in these appeal proceedings being considered not unreasonable in the sense intended by the advice contained within it.

46. For the above reasons, I consider that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense, as described in Circular 03/2009, has not been demonstrated and I therefore conclude that an award of costs is not justified.”

THE ISSUES

41. Although the issues have been formulated differently in the grounds of claim in the two applications, and in the claim for judicial review in the costs decision and the skeleton argument for the Council, the following issues arise:

(1) Did the inspector, and therefore the Secretary of State, misconstrue paragraph 47 of the Framework and, in particular the meaning of “persistent under delivery of housing ” in the Highfields and Berrells Road appeals?

(2) Did the Secretary of State in reaching his decisions in the Highfield and the Berrells Road appeals, fail to have regard to a material consideration, namely the reasoning of the inspector in the Kemble appeal?

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

(3) Did the Secretary of State err (a) in failing to have regard to the letter from the Chief Planning Officer dated 6 July 2012 which indicated that local planning authorities were entitled to use what was decribed as “option 1” figures or (b) in his approach to footnote 11 to the Framework in the assessment of deliverable sites or (c) in disregarding Local Plan Policy 19 or (d), in relation to Highfield, in his interpretation or application of paragraph 116 of the Framework?

(4) Was the decision of the Secretary of State to accept the recommendation of the inspector to make a partial award of costs in the Berrells Road appeal irrational?

(5) Did the Secretary of State in reaching his decision to make a partial award of costs in Berrells Road appeal, fail to have regard to a material consideration, namely the decision of the inspector on costs in the Kemble appeal?

DISCUSSION

The Proper Interpretation of Paragraph 47 of the Framework

42. The first question is whether the Defendant misdirected himself as to the meaning of “persistent under delivery of housing” in paragraph 47 of the Framework. Miss Sheikh, for the Council, developed this ground by reference to four points in her skeleton argument. First, she contended that the Secretary of State only had regard to the last 5 years rather than the 20 year period of the Structure Plan which was in force for the period 1991 to 2011. Secondly, he did not assess delivery against the Structure Plan targets for the period when it was in force but treated the targets as being out of date and artificially low. Thirdly, he disregarded the economic difficulties of the last 5 years. Fourthly, it is said that the Secretary of State took no account of the overall progress in delivering housing rather than looking at the average for the year. In oral submissions, Miss Sheikh emphasised that paragraph 47 of the Framework talks of “a record” of persistent under delivery of housing. That, Miss Sheikh submits, requires a measurement against some identifiable target, namely the Structure Plan figures, not against speculative figures for need. Further, it was submitted that persistent connoted a continued unbroken record.

43. It is now well established that the Secretary of State would be required to proceed upon a proper interpretation of the relevant planning policies and, for present purposes, the Framework. As the Supreme Court held at paragraph 18 in Tesco Stores Ltd. v Dundee Council (Asda Stores Ltd. and another intervening) [2012] UKSC 13 in relation to development plans:

“….. policy statements should be interpreted objectively in accordance with the language used, read as always in its proper context”.

44. It is, however, correct to note that the Supreme Court recognised at paragraph 19 that:

“That is not to say that such statements should be construed as if they were statutory or contractual provisions. Although a development plan has a legal status and legal effects, it is not analogous in its nature or purpose to a statute or a contract. As

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

has often been observed, development plans are full of broad statements of policy, many of which may be mutually irreconcilable, so that in a particular case one must give way to another. In addition, many of the provisions of development plans are framed in language whose application to a given set of facts requires the exercise of judgment. Such matters fall within the jurisdiction of planning authorities, and their exercise of their judgment can only be challenged on the ground that it is irrational or perverse ( Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759 , 780 per Lord Hoffmann). Nevertheless, planning authorities do not live in the world of Humpty Dumpty: they cannot make the development plan mean whatever they would like it to mean.”

45. In the present case, there is a need to interpret paragraph 47 of the Framework correctly. That will involve determining, the correct approach to identifying a record of persistent under delivery of housing. That will involve, for example, consideration of the meaning of “persistent”. The paragraph will also involve questions of judgment for the decision-maker in applying the concepts to a given set of facts in order to determine whether or not a particular degree of under delivery of housing falls within paragraph 47 and so triggers the requirement to bring forward an extra amount of housing to meet past shortfalls.

46. Paragraph 47 is to be interpreted, and applied, having regard to its purpose and context. The purpose of the Framework is to set out the Government’s view of what constitutes sustainable development in England. That includes providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations: see paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Framework. Section 6 of the Framework is concerned with the government’s view of how local planning authorities should deliver appropriate housing. The immediate context of paragraph 47 of the Framework is therefore concerned with what local planning authorities should do to boost significantly the supply of housing, as appears from the opening words of paragraph 47. The first bullet point is concerned with ensuring that Local Plans meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing. That is, it is dealing with the assessment of need for the period after the end of the Structure Plan and during the currency of the next Local Plan (to cover an appropriate time scale, preferably a period of 15 years: see paragraph 157 of the Framework). The second bullet point is concerned to ensure that local planning authorities identify a “supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing” with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market. Where there has been “a record of persistent under delivery of housing” local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.

47. In the context of paragraph 47, the reference to “persistent” under delivery of housing is a reference to a state of affairs, under delivery of housing, which has continued over time. A decision-maker would need to have regard to a reasonable period of time measured over years rather than looking at one particular point, to ensure that the

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

situation was one of persistent under delivery rather than a temporary or short lived fluctuation. The precise period of time would be a matter for the judgment of the decision-maker. There has to be a “record” of under delivery of housing. That points towards assessing previous performance (i.e. the performance in the period prior to the expiry of the Structure Plan and before the new Local Plan should have come into force). The need to establish a record of under delivery indicates there will need to be some measure of what the housing requirements were, and then a record of a failure to deliver that amount of housing persistently, i.e. a failure continuing over a relevant period of time. A decision-maker would be entitled to take the figures in the previous Structure Plan as a measurement of what the housing requirement was in order to assess whether there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing. However, the requirement is that there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing (not a failure to meet the targets set out in the Structure Plan). It would, in my judgment, be open to a decision maker to identify an appropriate measure of housing needs either separately from the Structure Plan or as a means of reinforcing conclusions drawn on the basis of the Structure Plan.

48. Against that background, I turn to the approach to paragraph 47 of the Framework taken by the inspector, and adopted by the Secretary of State, in the Highfield and the Berrells Road appeals and the criticism of that approach. The inspector considered the figures in the Structure Plan. The inspector considered that an assessment over five years was a reasonable period of time. As she pointed out, the Framework was looking forward for five years and, therefore, looking back at delivery over a period of five years was reasonable. As the inspector pointed out, the Structure Plan itself contemplated annual targets and it was reasonable to allow for some fluctuations above and below that figure. That approach is, in my judgment, consistent with the Framework. On that basis, and annualising the figures for 5 years, 291 dwellings a year had been completed and the annual target was 307.5 dwellings. There had been a shortfall in meeting the housing requirement. In any event, the inspector also considered the period over 10 years and noted that there had been a failure to meet the requirement in 7 out of 10, or 8 out of 10 years (using two different measures). The inspector also considered that that record was a record of under delivery. The inspector considered the position in relation to the entire 20 year period of the Structure Plan and there was a shortfall of 89 dwellings. In other words, by reference to a five year, 10 year and 20 year period, the number of houses provided fell short of the Council’s housing requirements in those periods.

49. The inspector also bore in mind that measuring delivery against the Structure Plan requirements meant measuring delivery against a requirement that was already artificially low. That view was based on the fact that the Structure Plan was based on 1996 projections whereas more recent projections prepared during that period indicated that the housing requirement exceeds the requirement provided for in the Structure Plan. In my judgment, the inspector was entitled to take that factor into account in deciding whether there had been a record of persistent under delivery of housing. The purpose underlying paragraph 47 is to ensure that there is adequate housing for the future. The second bullet point is dealing with the bringing forward of housing to an earlier period in the Local Plan if there has been a record of persistent under delivery in earlier periods. In assessing housing requirements, an inspector was entitled to bear in mind that there has been under delivery measured against a Structure Plan which itself understates the need for housing and to treat that fact as

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

reinforcing her conclusion that there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, and that an additional 20% should be added, to be brought forward from later in the plan period. The approach taken by the inspector, and approved by the Secretary of State, was in my judgment based on a proper interpretation of paragraph 47 of the Framework.

50. Against that background, the claim that the Defendant erred in his interpretation of persistent under delivery is not, in my judgment, made out. First, the Defendant was entitled, in principle, to have regard to a five year period for assessing if there had been a record of persistent under delivery. But, in any event, the decision-maker had regard to the 20 year period of the Structure Plan and a 10 year period. On all measures, there had been under delivery and the decision-maker was entitled to characterise that as a record of persistent under delivery. Secondly, the Defendant did assess delivery against the Structure Plan requirements for the period when it was in force and was entitled to take into account that not only had there been under delivery as compared with the Structure Plan figures but that those figures understated the actual housing requirement. Thirdly, there is no basis for the claim that the Defendant took no account of what is described as the overall progress in delivering housing rather than looking at the average for each year. The decision-maker was seeking to identify whether there had been a record of persistent under delivery. In doing so, the decision-maker was entitled to test the figures over a reasonable period of time by annualising the figures for that period. But in any event, the decision-maker here considered the entire period of the Structure Plan.

51. Finally, in my judgment, there is no basis for concluding that the decision-maker disregarded the economic difficulties of the last five years. The basis for this criticism is primarily paragraph 13.25 of the inspector’s report in the Berrells Road appeal. The inspector had set out her reasoning in paragraphs 13.20 to 13.24 in terms which are materially identical to paragraphs 14.21 to 14.24 in the Highfield appeal which are set out above at paragraph 26. Paragraphs 13.25 and 13.26 of the reporting Berrells Road then says this:

“13.25 As to whether or not the difficulties of delivering housing during a period of recession should have any bearing on assessing whether a 20% buffer is needed, the appellant rightly points out that “economic circumstances” form no part of national policy, as set out in paragraph 47 of the framework. Similarly, while Councils have a responsibility to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of deliverable sites available, they have little control over actual delivery of the housing for which they have granted planning permission. It may therefore be perceived as somewhat unfair to require a 20% buffer in circumstances where a Council has done all it can to provide sufficient deliverable sites, and the under-delivery of housing in its area is demonstrably due to the state of the market, rather than an inadequate land supply.

13.26 Be that as it may, my interpretation of the evidence provided in the current case is that it provides a strong indication, for the reasons set out above, that there has been persistent under-delivery of housing in the Cotswold district.

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

An additional buffer of 20% should therefore be added. This increases the five year housing requirement figure derived from the draft RSSW to 2,426 dwellings over the next five years.”

52. In my judgment, the inspector was well aware of the argument that the economic difficulties in the five year period included a period of economic difficulties when it is to be expected that fewer houses might be built. However, the inspector considered that “Be that as it may” the other evidence amounted to a strong indication of a record of persistent under delivery. That record included, as the inspector noted, the 10 ten year period, which extended to a period well before the current economic down turn. In those circumstances, the inspector, and the Secretary of State were aware of the claims in relation to the economic downturn and did not, as the Council’s skeleton argument contends at paragraph 47(c) disregard them. Rather, for the reasons given in the report, the inspector did not consider that that fact altered the position in any event and did not have to decide, ultimately, whether or not adjustments needed to be made to reflect the economic down turn.

The Duty to Have Regard to Material Considerations

53. After the inspector had submitted her reports in the Highfield, and the Berrells Road, appeal but before the Secretary of State gave his decision in those appeals, the inspector published his decision in the Kemble appeal. Miss Sheikh for the Council contends that the decision of the inspector in the Kemble appeal was a material consideration which the Secretary of State was obliged to take into account before reaching his decision. The inspector in the Kemble appeal was considering the meaning and application of paragraph 47 of the Framework in the context of this Council’s requirement for housing and whether there had been a record of persistent under delivery of housing on its part. A previous decision of an inspector on that issue, it is said, is a material consideration. The Council, who were a party to the Kemble appeal did not draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the Kemble decision. Their evidence to this court does not explain why, if they considered the reasoning of the inspector was material, they did not draw it to the Secretary of State’s attention. Miss Sheikh, however, says that that does not matter as there is a public interest in ensuring consistency between decisions as is recognised, for example, in London Borough of Hounslow v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Kapoor [2009] EWHC 1055.

54. In the present case, Miss Sheikh submitted that the decision of the inspector in the Kemble appeal was concerned with the interpretation of policy and, in particular, the assessment of housing need. It is submitted that the Secretary of State was disagreeing with a critical part of the reasoning of the inspector (the need to add a 20%, rather than a 5%, buffer as there was a record of persistent under delivery of housing). Such a decision is, submits Miss Sheikh, a material consideration to which regard must be paid and, if the Secretary of State was to depart from it, he had to give his reasons for doing. Miss Sheikh relied on a number of authorities including, in particular, the decisions of the Court of Appeal in North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Clover ( 1992) 5 P & C.R. 137 at page 145 and The Bath Society v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991] 1 W.L.R. 1303. The Secretary of State’s decisions in the Highfield and the Berrells Road appeals were, it is submitted, unlawful because of the unexplained inconsistency between those decisions and the earlier inspector’s decision in the Kemble appeal.

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

55. As a matter of public law, a public body must have regard to material considerations. That duty arises, broadly, in two situations. First, there are those considerations which are so obviously material to a decision that the decision-maker must take them into account (whether or not any particular person draws them to the decision-maker’s attention) in reaching a decision. These may be matters that statute expressly or impliedly requires a decision maker to consider. They also include, as Cooke J. expressed it in CREEDNZ Inc v Governor General [1981 1 N.Z.L.R. 172 at page 183:

“matters so obviously material to a decision on a particular project that any thing short of direct consideration of them by the ministers … would not be in accordance with the Act.”

56. The question of whether a consideration is a material consideration is a matter of law for the court to determine. The question of the weight, if any, to attach to a material consideration is a matter for the decision-maker: see Tesco Stores Ltd. v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 W.L.R. 759 at page 780E-H.

57. Secondly, there are considerations which may be potentially relevant to a decision and, if they are drawn to the attention of the decision-maker, the decision-maker will have to consider those matters and decide what weight, if any, to give to those considerations.

58. The general position is reflected, broadly, in the provisions of section 70 of the 1990 Act. In relation to the first group of considerations, some considerations are relevant considerations which must be taken into account because statute expressly provides for that. In the planning context, an example is the development plan as section 70(2)(a) of 1990 Act expressly provides that the planning authority shall have regard to that (and indeed, determinations must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise: section 38(6) of the 2004 Act). Furthermore, where considerations are so obviously relevant to planning decisions in England then a planning authority must have regard to them, whether specifically referred to or not. An example is a relevant provision of the Framework itself. That sets out the government’s planning policies for England and is a material consideration.

59. In relation to the second group of considerations, a number of other matters are potentially material to a planning decision. If they are drawn to the attention of the decision-maker, and if as a matter of law, they are relevant considerations to the planning decision, the decision-maker will have to have regard to them (as a matter of general public law, as reflected in the specific obligation imposed by section 70(2)(c) of the 1990 Act). The weight, if any, to be given to the consideration will be a matter for the decision-maker. If such considerations are not drawn to the decision-maker’s attention, however, he will not have acted unlawfully if he does not have regard to them.

60. In general terms, previous decisions of inspectors may, depending on the particular circumstances, be capable of being a material planning consideration. If such a decision is drawn to the attention of the decision-maker, the decision-maker will have to have regard to such a decision (assuming that it is material). The decision-maker is entitled to depart from an earlier decision but before doing so the decision-maker

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

should have regard to the importance of consistency and give the reasons for departure from that earlier decision: see North Wiltshire District Council v the Secretary of State for the Environment and Clover [(1992) 675 P & C.R. 138 at page 145 and see Dunster Properties Limited v First Secretary of State [2007] EWCA Civ 236.

61. In general terms, however, the Secretary of State (or an inspector) is not obliged to take into account previous planning decisions if they are not draw to his attention. The Secretary of State (or an inspector) is not required to make his own inquiries in order to establish if there is a previous decision which may be potentially relevant. The general position, in my judgment, is set out in Granchester Retail Parks plc v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Luton Borough Council [2003] EWHC 92 (Admin.) at paragraphs 26 to 28:

“26. It is quite correct that the Matalan decision, if it had been brought to the inspector’s attention, would have been a relevant consideration. It did not create any kind of binding precendent, but nevertheless the inspector would have taken it into account if he had known about it. The fatal flaw in this limb of the claimant’s case, however, is that the Matalan decision was not drawn to the inspector’s attention until after he had given his own decision. As a general principle a decision-maker does not err in law if he fails to take into account relevant matters which are not drawn to his attention and of which he is unaware. There is abundant authority for the proposition that a planning inspector’s duty to take into account relevant decisions of his colleagues only extends to decisions drawn to his attention: see Rockhold ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1986] JPL 130 at 131; Barnet Meeting Room Trust v SOSE [1990] 3 PLR 21 at 28A to B; North Wiltshire DC v SOSE [1992] JPL 955 at 960; R v SOSE, Chiltern DC, ex parte David Baber [1996] JPL 1034 at 1037 to 1038, and 1040.

27. In my view the earlier decision of Hollis v Secretary of State for the Environment [1982] P&CR 351, upon which Mr Kolinsky relies, does not support the opposite conclusion. Mr Kolinsky submitted that the duty of planning officers to be consistent with one another was an onerous one. Accordingly it was their duty to take into account relevant decisions of colleagues, whether or not such decisions were cited in argument. This duty could be performed by carrying out a computer check of the database of all inspectors’ decisions.

28. To my mind this is an unsound argument. It flies in the face of both principle and authority, as previously mentioned. Furthermore, if correct, the proposition of law advanced by Mr Kolinsky would impose a wholly intolerable burden upon the planning inspectorate. It should be borne in mind that there are some 400 planning inspectors, all engaged upon producing decisions. It is the duty of an inspector to decide cases, not to carry out extensive research on behalf of the parties.”

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

That general approach is also reflected in the decision of London Borough of Hounslow v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Kapoor [2009] EWHC 1055 at paragraph 18.

62. There may be cases where there is a dispute as to whether, in fact, the existence of a previous planning decision has been sufficiently drawn to the attention of the decision-maker. In the North Wiltshire case, for example, the issues concerned whether a particular site was outside the physical limits of the village of Notton in which certain planning policies applied. There was a decision on a planning appeal, taken in the early 1980s, that the site was outside the physical limits of the site. A later application was made for planning permission and was refused. In their response to the appeal, the Council referred to the earlier decision in their written submissions giving a description of the earlier planning history of the site and included a copy of the decision with its submissions. The Court of Appeal held that the inspector did have a duty to have regard to the earlier decision as it was before the inspector and was relevant as the earlier decision dealt with an identical proposal albeit for a slighter large site where the issue was the same. Similarly, in the Hounslow case, there was an appeal against an enforcement notice and one of the grounds was that planning permission should be granted. The appeal notice referred an earlier planning appeal decision of 2006. The Council had, erroneously, said there had been no previous appeal against the decision not to grant planning. It was the fact that there had been a reference to the earlier decision that made the “crucial difference” and caused the High Court in that case to take the view that the general position (that there was no obligation on an inspector to search for other decisions) did not apply: see London Borough of Hounslow v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Kapoor [2009] EWHC 1055 at paragraph 19.

63. Here, the attention of the Secretary of State was not drawn to the earlier decision of the inspector in the Kemble decision. The general position therefore applied, and, in my judgment, the Secretary of State was not required to undertake inquiries to see if there had been any decision of an inspector indicating how paragraph 47 of the Framework should be interpreted or how housing requirements in the Council’s area had been assessed.

64. Miss Sheikh relies heavily upon the decision in the Bath Society case as establishing a different approach, namely that where a previous decision is a material consideration, failure to have regard to that decision is unlawful. The only issue, thereafter, is the discretion of the court to refuse an application to quash. Whether a party had drawn a previous decision to the attention of the decision-maker was only a factor relevant to that discretion.

65. The appeal site in the Bath Society case comprised a field that the local plan showed as allocated for residential use. There was an objection and the Bath Society said the field should be shown in the local plan as open space. In April 1988, there was an inquiry into that objection. The inspector reported in June 1988 and recommended the local plan should be amended to show the field as open space. In 1987 an application had been made for planning permission to build a block of flats and that was refused. There was an appeal and an inquiry was held in May 1988. The inspector reported in July 1988 and recommended allowing the appeal and granting permission for the erection of a block of flats. He referred to the fact that there had been an objection relating to the field but did not give the details. On 25 November 1988, the Secretary

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

of State issued his decision allowing the appeal and granting planning permission for the erection of a block of flats. On 20 December 1988, the local authority resolved to accept the recommendations of the inspector on the local plan and modified the local plan to show the field as open space.

66. The Court of Appeal held that the recommendation that the field be included as open space in the local plan was a material consideration. It was a recommendation which, if accepted , would lead to the local plan containing an allocation for the site as open space and the proposed residential development would be totally inconsistent with that recommendation. Consequently, the Court of Appeal considered that the recommendation was a matter which was so obviously material that the Secretary of State had to have regard to it. In other words, the recommendation fell within the first category of considerations, those to which the decision-maker must have regard whether or not they are drawn to the decision-maker’s attention: see [1991] 1 W.L.R. 1303 at page 1211B-E. However, quashing the decision was still a matter of discretion for the court. In that regard, the matter had not been drawn to the Secretary of State’s attention but, on the other hand, it was referred to in the inspector’s report on the appeal and the Secretary of State could easily have considered the local plan inspector’s report. In those circumstances, and on balance, the Court of Appeal quashed the decision: see [1991] 1 W.L.R. 1303 at p. 1311F-G and 1313A- D.

67. The present case is different. The Secretary of State would only have a duty to have regard to the inspector’s report in the Kemble appeal if it were drawn to his attention. It is not a consideration which is so obviously material that the Secretary of State is obliged to obtain it for the reasons given above. The Secretary of State did not act unlawfully in not having regard to the decision. In The Bath Society case, the local plan inspector’s recommendation was so obviously material that it was a consideration which the Secretary of State had to consider (whether or not it was drawn to his attention). By failing to have regard to it, the Secretary of State acted unlawfully in that case and the question thereafter was whether the court should, as a matter of discretion decline to quash the unlawful decision.

68. For those reasons, in my judgment the Secretary of State did not act unlawfully in the Highfield or the Berrells Road appeal by not having regard to the report of the inspector in the Kemble appeal as it had not been drawn to his attention.

69. If, contrary to that conclusion, the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully by failing to have regard to the inspector report in the Kemble appeal, then, as a matter of discretion, I would decline to quash the Highfield and the Berrells Road decisions for the following reasons. The inspector in the Kemble Road appeal decided that planning permission should be granted. He considered the housing requirement for the Council’s district and considered that the Council had not demonstrated that it had a five year supply of housing land to meet those needs. In reaching that conclusion in relation to the Kemble appeal, it was not necessary for him to apply the 20% buffer. In the Highfield and Berrells Road appeals, the inspector did consider it appropriate to apply the 20%. Most significantly, all the facts and reasoning considered by the inspector in the Kemble appeals were known and considered by the inspector in the Highfield and Berrells Road appeals. The reports in those appeals make it clear why the inspector reached a different conclusion on those matters from the inspector in the Kemble appeal. She considered that looking back five years and considering the Structure Plan figures for that period was reasonable and demonstrated that there had

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

been a shortfall. She considered the fact that there had been an economic downturn but noted that the under delivery had been occurring over the last 10 years and even before the down turn began. She considered the shortfall over the entirety of the Structure Plan period. Significantly, she considered that the Structure Plan itself understated the housing requirements. Where, therefore, there had been a consistent failure to meet the Structure Plan figures for housing, and where those figures in fact understated the housing need, she was satisfied for the reasons she gave that there had been a record of persistent under delivery of housing. One purpose of requiring one inspector in a planning appeal to consider earlier planning decisions is to ensure consistency so that like cases are treated alike but subject to the fact that an inspector is free to disagree with the judgment of another provided that the later inspector gives reasons for the difference in approach: see North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1992) 65 P & C.R. 137 at page 145. In the present case, the reasons for the inspector taking a different approach in the Highfield and the Berrells Road appeals appear clearly from the inspector’s reports. The reasons are lawful reasons. There is, in substance, no unexplained inconsistency between the approach taken in the Kemble appeal and that taken in the Highfield and Berrells Road appeals. In the circumstances, therefore, even if there had been an unlawful failure to have regard to the inspector’s decision, it would not be appropriate to quash the Highfield or the Berrells Road decision. I would, therefore, have declined, in any event, as a matter of discretion to quash those decisions on this ground.

The Other Challenges to the Highfield and Berrells Road Decisions.

70. The other grounds of challenge to these two decisions can be dealt with shortly. Firstly, the Secretary of State did not err in failing to have regard to the letter of the Chief Planning Officer dated 6 July 2012. That letter is addressed to planning authorities and says that they may replace the regional strategy targets with what are referred to as “option 1 numbers” if “that is the right thing to do for your area” (see paragraph 12 of the letter). The inspector considered the Council’s preference for the use of Option 1 figures but rejected that as the figures that emerged during the draft regional strategy process had been tested at an examination in public and those figures were likely to be a better reflection of the Council’s housing requirements: see paragraph 14.9 of the report in the Highfield appeal.

71. Secondly, the inspector did not err in her interpretation and application of footnote 11 to paragraph 47 of the Framework. That deals with whether there is a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years housing. The footnote says that sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not implemented. The inspector specifically referred to footnote 11. She noted that the Council had agreed that planning permissions would lapse before implementation in relation to small sites at a rate of 15 a year based on Council records. The inspector inferred that a lapse rate would apply in relation to large sites too. In the absence of other evidence, she concluded that the application of a 10% lapse rate was reasonable. That was essentially a matter for judgment of the inspector (whose reasoning the Secretary of State adopted). She directed herself to the terms of the footnote. She had evidence about the lapse rate for certain sites and drew reasonable conclusions from that evidence and the problems that arise in relation to construction and funding. See paragraph 14.25 of the Highfield decision.

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

72. Thirdly, the Secretary of State did not err in disregarding Local Plan Policy 19. The second sentence of paragraph 49 of the Framework says that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered to be up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply. Miss Sheikh submits that Local Plan 19 restricts development, including housing development, and so is not a housing policy for the purposes of paragraph 49 of the Framework. The short answer is that Local Plan Policy 19 is a policy relating to the supply of housing (amongst other developments). It restricts development, including housing, development. As the inspector correctly held, applying the Framework, Local Plan Policy 19 should be disapplied “to the extent” that it “seeks to restrict the supply of housing”: see paragraph 14.44 of the report in the Highfields appeal”.

73. Finally, the Council contends, in relation to Highfield, that the inspector (and hence the Secretary of State erred) in the interpretation or application of paragraph 116 of the Framework. That provides that planning permission should be refused for major development in the AONB except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be considered to be in the public interest the paragraph refers to certain matters that should be considered. The inspector expressly considered and referred to the terms of paragraph 116 of the Framework (see paragraph 14.47 of the report in the Highfield appeal). She considered the matters referred to in paragraph 116 such as “the need for the development”. Her conclusion (accepted by the Secretary of State) at paragraph 14.69 of her report was that:

“there is a clear and pressing need for more housing; locally in terms of the severe shortfall that currently exists in the Cotswold District … and, nationally, in terms of the need to get the economy growing… In my view, these amount to exceptional circumstances, where permitting the proposed development can reasonably be considered to meet the wider “public interest”, in the terms of the Framework.

74. In those circumstances, the inspector considered paragraph 116 of the Framework. She correctly interpreted the paragraph and applied it to the facts. Her judgment on those matters was accepted by the Secretary of State. There was no misinterpretation or unlawful application of paragraph 116 of the Framework.

The Costs Decision

75. The inspector in the Berrells Road decision decided that the Council acted unreasonably within the meaning of paragraph A.12 of the annex to Circular 03/2009 to the extent that it maintained that it could demonstrate that it had a five year supply of land. She set out her reasons for that conclusion in her report on costs. She considered that the use of the Structure Plan figures for housing was a reasonable starting point but it was not reasonable to rely on that requirement alone as it was necessary to take account of up to date evidence and recent forecasts and projections (as appeared from planning documents and her own earlier decision in an appeal relating to Moreton in Marsh). The inspector in the Kemble appeal took the view that using the Structure Plan as a starting point “is not wholly indefensible” and he considered it as misguided rather than unreasonable (see paragraph 36 of the report on costs in the Kemble appeal). He considered the balance “to be marginally in favour” of not regarding the Council’s behaviour on this point as unreasonable (see paragraph 45 of the report).

MR JUSTICE LEWIS Approved Judgment

76. Miss Sheikh submits it is irrational for two different inspectors to reach two different conclusions on the question of whether it was unreasonable to maintain that there was a five year plan. In my judgment, it is not irrational. The assessment of whether behaviour is unreasonable is a question of judgment on which different inspectors can, rationally, reach different conclusions. The inspector in Berrells Road clearly took the view that, in the circumstances, relying on the Structure Plan and not using updated evidence was unreasonable. The inspector in the Kemble appeal thought “on balance” it was misguided rather than irrational. The fact that two inspectors took different views of the Council’s behaviour (albeit only marginally) does not render either decision an irrational one. As Lord Hailsham L.C. recognised in Re W [1970 1 A.C. 682 at page 700C-F, two reasonable persons “can perfectly reasonably come to opposite conclusions on the same set of facts without forfeiting their title to be regarded as reasonable”.

77. The Council also contends that the Secretary of State failed to have regard to a material consideration, namely the inspector’s reports on costs in the Kemble Appeal. For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State was not, in my judgment, required to investigate whether there were other potentially relevant decisions about costs before reaching his judgment. The Council did not draw the report in the Kemble appeal to his attention. The Secretary of State did not therefore fail to have regard to a relevant consideration.

Conclusion

78. The decisions of the Secretary of State in the Highfield and the Berrells Road appeals are lawful. The inspector, and hence the Secretary of State who adopted her reasoning, correctly interpreted the relevant policy and reached conclusions that were open on the material available. The Secretary of State did not fail to have regard to a material consideration. The two applications to quash made pursuant to section 288 of the 1990 Act will therefore be dismissed. In relation to the decision on costs in Berrells road, I recognise that the points raised were arguable and grant permission to apply for judicial review. The decision of the Secretary of State to make a partial award of costs in that case is, however, lawful and the Secretary of State did not fail to have regard to a relevant consideration. The claim for judicial review is therefore dismissed.

APPENDIX 3 AGENDA ITEM 6

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to Council

18 December 2013

TITLE : Local Plan: Housing Requirements and Update

EXECUTIVE COUNCILLOR : Cllr Godfrey Claff – Executive Councillor for Regeneration Services

CONTACT OFFICER : Dai Larner - Executive Director (Place)

WARDS INVOLVED : All

Appendices Attached:

Appendix 1 – Leader’s Update Appendix 2 – List of Significant Changes to Local Plan

1. Reason for the Report: To identify and agree further changes to the emerging Local Plan and additional targeted consultation to achieve a sound plan for subsequent publication and submission.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the Leader’s Update at Appendix 1 is noted;

2.2 That the Council agrees the Plan Period identified in Appendix 2 as the basis for targeted public consultation and subsequent inclusion in the proposed submission version of the Local Plan;

2.3 That the Council agrees the Housing Requirement identified in Appendix 2 as the basis for targeted public consultation and subsequent inclusion in the proposed submission version of the Local Plan;

2.4 That the Council agrees the Employment Requirement identified in Appendix 2 as the basis for targeted public consultation and subsequent inclusion in the proposed submission version of the Local Plan;

2.5 That the Council agrees the Site Changes within the Glossopdale Sub-area identified in Appendix 2 as the basis for

6.1 targeted public consultation and subsequent inclusion in the proposed submission version of the Local Plan;

2.6 That the Council agrees the Site Changes within the Central Sub-area identified in Appendix 2 as the basis for targeted public consultation and subsequent inclusion in the proposed submission version of the Local Plan;

2.7 That the Council agrees the Site Changes within the Buxton Sub-area identified in Appendix 2 as the basis for targeted public consultation and subsequent inclusion in the proposed submission version of the Local Plan;

2.8 That the Council agrees the Significant Policy Changes identified in Appendix 2 as the basis for targeted public consultation and subsequent inclusion in the proposed submission version of the Local Plan;

2.9 That the Executive Director (Place) be authorised to make any minor amendments necessary to ensure consistency and improve the clarity of the proposed submission version of the Local Plan in conjunction with the portfolio holder;

2.10 That Councillors note the risks to soundness identified in the report.

3. Executive Summary

3.1 The High Peak Local Plan is a single planning document which will, upon its adoption, replace the current Local Plan and provide an up-to- date strategy, policies and allocations to guide development across that part of the High Peak outside the Peak District National Park.

3.2 The Local Plan will have to be consistent with the government’s planning principles and policies as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and must be prepared in accordance with current Regulations and legislation. Before it can be adopted it must be prepared through engagement with local communities and organisations as well as statutory consultees and will be subject to an examination to assess its soundness.

3.3 In January 2013 the Council agreed a Preferred Options Local Plan which was subject to consultation in March and April. Council subsequently agreed an amended timetable for the Local Plan in July in order to undertake further evidence base studies to mitigate the risks to soundness arising in particular from a need to fully meet the objectively assessed housing needs of the Borough.

3.4 A member workshop was held on 27 th November at which the requirements for achieving a sound Local Plan were explained and the

6.2 findings from the various studies and their implications for the Local Plan were outlined. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the further changes needed to achieve a sound Local Plan and to provide a steer to officers to inform the preparation of the proposed submission Local Plan.

3.5 This report summarises the key changes to the Local Plan considered necessary to achieve a sound plan which were discussed at the workshop. Significantly it identifies changes to the plan period and the housing requirement based on the latest assessment of need and capacity for development and subsequent changes to the allocations. Subject to members’ agreement, these will need to form the basis of targeted consultation before any decision is made on the proposed submission version of the Local Plan on 24 th February.

3.6 Members are recommended to agree the further changes to the Local Plan listed in Appendix 2 for targeted consultation.

4. How this report links to Corporate Priorities

4.1 Given the broad nature of the Local Plan, it will have direct implications for all of the Council’s corporate priorities.

5. Options and Analysis

5.1 The key decision for members is to agree the revised plan period, housing targets, and changes to allocations, which can then form the basis for targeted consultation. The options for members therefore are:

5.2 Agree the changes to the Local Plan as recommended in the report – this will enable targeted consultation to be undertaken and the proposed submission version of the Local Plan to be prepared for consideration by Council in February and subsequent publication in March in accordance with the timetable agreed by the Council.

5.3 Do not agree the changes to the Local Plan – the changes to the Local Plan are intended to make the plan sound when it is published and submitted for examination. If these are not made, or if alternative changes are made, there is a very significant risk that the Local Plan will not be found sound or that the Council may be advised by the Planning Inspectorate to reconsider the plan before submitting. This would lead to a significant delay to the adoption of the Local Plan until there has been further consideration to agree suitable changes. In the meantime the authority would continue to be vulnerable from speculative planning applications.

6.3 6. Implications

6.1 Community Safety - (Crime and Disorder Act 1998)

None directly

6.2 Workforce

None directly

6.3 Equality and Diversity/Equality Impact Assessment

This report has been prepared in accordance with the Council's Diversity and Equality Policies.

6.4 Financial Considerations

The cost of producing, publishing and consulting on the Local Plan will be met by existing budgets and any additional costs will be reported through the quarterly financial performance reports.

6.5 Legal

The preparation of a Plan is a statutory requirement. The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2012 require public participation in the preparation of the Local Plan.

6.6 Sustainability

The changes will be subject to a Sustainability Appraisal.

6.7 Internal and External Consultation

The changes will be subject to targeted internal and external consultations.

6.8 Risk Assessment

Risks are identified in the report.

7. Background and Detail 7.1 At the meeting of the Council on 28 th January 2013, members agreed a Preferred Options Local Plan which was the subject of extensive public consultation between 27 th February and 10 th April. This included a number of drop-in sessions across the Borough at which the public were invited to make comments. A summary of all the consultation

6.4 responses and comments made at the drop-in sessions has been produced and is available on the Council’s website.

7.2 The next stage of the Local Plan preparation process is to publish and invite representations on the proposed submission version of the Local Plan. It should be noted that publication is not the same as consultation, as the assumption is that the Local Plan is considered by the Council at this stage to be sound. The publication period is an opportunity for those dissatisfied (or satisfied) with the proposed submission version of the Local Plan to make formal representations to the Inspector about its soundness. In publishing the proposed submission Local Plan the Council must therefore be confident that it has produced a plan which can pass the tests of soundness set out by the government in the NPPF.

7.3 The current timetable for the Local Plan, agreed by the Council in July, requires publication of the proposed submission Local Plan in March 2014 and subsequent submission for examination in July. In order to achieve this it will be necessary for the Council to agree the final submission version at its meeting on 24th February.

Achieving a Sound Local Plan

7.4 Before the Local Plan can be adopted it will be examined by an independent Inspector whose role it is to assess whether the plan has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate, legal and procedural requirements and whether it is ‘sound’. The Council should only submit a plan for examination which it considers is ‘sound’.

7.5 Members will be aware that considerable work has been undertaken recently to ensure that the various tests of soundness can be met. This has included a number of significant new or updated areas of the evidence base as well as constructive engagement with other public bodies and neighbouring councils to meet the ‘Duty to Cooperate’.

7.6 A workshop was held for members on 27 th November at which the requirements for achieving a sound Local Plan were explained and the findings from various studies and their implications for the Local Plan were outlined. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the further changes needed to achieve a sound Local Plan and to provide a steer to officers to inform the preparation of the proposed submission Local Plan.

7.7 It is clear from the latest evidence presented to members at the workshop that there is a significant risk that the Local Plan, as currently drafted, would not be found sound by an Inspector. This was primarily due to the housing requirements being substantially below the objectively assessed needs - a factor which has resulted in many plans across the country recently having to be withdrawn or revised. This

6.5 report therefore identifies the further changes considered necessary to make the plan sound.

Further Changes

The Plan Period

7.8 The NPPF requires that Local Plans should be drawn up over an appropriate timescale - preferably a 15 year time horizon. It is good practice therefore for the Local Plan period to extend to 15 years beyond the date of adoption. The plan period which the Local Plan is based on currently extends from 2006 to 2028.

7.9 As the Plan is now due to be adopted in February 2015, this means that if the plan period remains at 2006 to 2028 it will only run for 13 years beyond the date of adoption. Also the start of the plan period is now 7 years ago and some of the information underpinning the Plan prior to 2011 is becoming out of date. Revised data on population, household projections and employment levels is now available from the 2011 Census so it is logical to begin the plan period at 2011. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment will also be updated to this base date. It is therefore suggested that the plan period runs from 2011 to 2031.

7.10 Between 2006 and 2011, and based on the housing requirement of the Regional Plan, there were 1420 new homes completed. At a rate of 300 per year there should have been 1500 completions, so in order to ensure that the required level of growth is achieved, 80 additional units will need to be added to the requirement for 2011 to 2031.

The Development Requirements

7.11 The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) will establish the objectively assessed need for housing for the Borough to 2031. The retail study and employment land update will establish land requirements for retail and employment uses for the same period. The other studies including the landscape assessment, viability study, the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and the transport impact study then look at constraints on the area which may prevent the full objectively assessed need from being met.

7.12 The current preferred option is 270 new homes per annum (5290 over the plan period 2011 to 2031). The draft interim findings from the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) have indicated that the range for the objectively assessed need is likely to be between 416 and 455 new homes per year. This is based on the Baseline and CLG (government) projection scenarios contained in the Technical Note produced by the consultants (copy available on the Members Portal). The NPPF and recent Inspectors’ reports stress the need to fully meet objectively assessed need. A development rate of 270 homes per

6.6 annum is significantly below this and cannot be supported by the latest evidence of need. Equally, evidence from the landscape impact assessment and the SHLAA indicates that the full objectively assessed need figure is not deliverable without significant impacts.

7.13 It is likely that a reasonable housing target for the Borough, taking into account both our duty to meet objectively assessed need, alongside the constraints on growth presented by the Green Belt, landscape character and infrastructure would be somewhere between these two extremes but as close as possible to the objectively assessed need.

7.14 Overall it is considered that there is sufficient identified land to meet the annual requirement of up to 360 new homes per year. It is considered that this is the limit of suitable land available for development in the Borough which would be argued at examination as representing the maximum capacity. Given the new assessed need of 416 - 455 per year it is considered unlikely that the inspector would accept anything below the figure of 360 new homes per year.

7.15 Notwithstanding the evidence that the full objectively assessed need cannot be met, there is still a high risk that this may not be accepted by an Inspector given the government’s and the NPPF’s pro-growth agenda. However, the evidence we have amassed will assist in trying to reduce the target number and together with the argument that no further suitable sites are available may allow the inspector the flexibility to consider an annual requirement of 360 per year to be sound, and selection of sites should be with this figure in mind.

7.16 In terms of employment requirements, the estimated requirement based on existing trends would mean a total of 33.15 hectares needed to 2031. This requirement still needs to be confirmed by work currently underway on updating the Employment Land Study. A review of land supply has also been undertaken which indicates that although there is a significant amount of potential employment land available to meet future needs, much is constrained or unsuitable and should be considered for other uses

7.17 With regard to the retail requirements, the updated Retail Study identified no additional retail provision requirement for Buxton, a requirement for an additional foodstore for the Central Area (preferably in New Mills) and no overriding requirement for additional retail provision in Glossop but this may be justified on the grounds of its regeneration benefits.

The Development Gap

7.18 The implication of the changes to the plan period and, more significantly, an increase in the annual development rate is an increase in the overall housing requirements from 5,940 dwellings (2006–2028

6.7 at 270 dwellings/annum) to 7,280 dwellings (2011–2031 at 360 dwellings/annum including the backlog from 2006 of 80 dwellings).

7.19 Part of this requirement will be met from small sites within the built-up area which are not required to be allocated. The NPPF only requires that key sites which are critical to the delivery of the Local Plan be identified. Some of the sites identified in the Preferred Options document lie within the built up area and are not key sites or are smaller than 20, so do not need to be allocated. For these reasons the allowance for small sites within the built up areas has been increased to take account of potential brownfield land development.

7.20 The table below shows how the increased growth rate would affect the target and the residual requirement (the amount which will need to be found on new sites) based on the apportionment between the sub- areas in the Preferred Options Local Plan. It also shows what the required provision would be after taking into account the shortfall from before 2011 and the allowances on small sites.

Target Complet Residual 2006 - Small Sites Required from ions & to be 2011 Allowance Provision on new 2011 – Commit identified Shortfall allocations 2031 ments on new Total Per sites Annum* District 7,200 PDNP -110 Plan 7,090 -2,167 4,923 +80 -1,200 -3,803 224 Area Buxton 2,482 -579 1,903 -109 -400 -1,394 82 (35%) Central 2,340 -1,014 1,326 +171 -400 -1,097 65 (33%) Glossop 2,269 -574 1,695 +18 -400 -1,313 77 (32%) Note* - Future annualised requirement from 2014 - 2031

7.21 The Preferred Options Local Plan makes provision for only 2,448 dwellings across the plan area. A number of these sites now have planning permission or are within the built up area boundary and are considered too small to be identified as allocations. Some of these sites are also no longer considered suitable for allocation. All of these changes were discussed at the workshop on 27 th November as well as some sites from the previous issues and options document, which were identified as being suitable for re-consideration. Taking these changes into consideration as well as the re-considered issues and options sites would give provision on identified sites for 2,865 dwellings. This still leaves a development gap of 938 dwellings. Over half of this shortfall would be in the Central area (see table below).

6.8 Required Provision on Development Provision Identified Gap Sites Plan Area 3,803 -2,865 -938 Buxton (35%) 1,394 -1,194 -200 Central (33%) 1,097 -609 -488 Glossop (32%) 1,313 -1,062 -251

7.22 In order to meet this development gap a number of new sites not previously consulted on would need to be considered as well as a number of changes to designations of some non-residential sites. These were discussed at the workshop. There are also several planning applications currently which, if they came forward, could potentially help meet the shortfall. The evidence base studies currently underway would also need to consider the impact of the additional provision.

7.23 All of the changes discussed at the workshop are identified in Appendix 2 to this report.

Other Changes

7.24 The workshop also considered a number of other changes to the Preferred Option Local Plan. This included changes to green belt boundaries, a proposed new green wedge at Harpur Hill, the removal of some employment allocations and changes to retail designations at Buxton.

7.25 Additionally there are some significant policy changes, which would need to be made to reflect the latest retail evidence and other matters. All of these changes are summarised in Appendix 2 to this report.

Additional Consultation

7.26 Any significant changes which affect the plan, such as a new allocation or a change to a proposed allocation which had not previously been consulted on, will need to be subject to a period of targeted consultation and a subsequent sustainability appraisal to ensure that the Council has considered the views of local residents, organisations and other interested parties and its impact before it agrees its final draft Local Plan.

7.27 In order to give sufficient time for responses to be made and summarised before the Council meeting on 24 th February, consultation would need to commence on 23 rd December. This would extend for a 7-week period (to allow for the Christmas break) until 10 th February. Consultation would comprise of emails and letters to all on the Local Plan consultation database (including those who had responded at previous stages), neighbour notification to those adjoining the new sites and the re-considered options sites, a press release and material on

6.9 the website. The consultation will focus on only the significant changes being considered to the Local Plan (listed in Appendix 2). A consultation document will be produced setting out the details of those matters on which responses can be made.

Next Stages

7.28 A summary of the responses to the targeted consultation will be reported to members at the meeting of Council on 24th February at the same time as the proposed submission version of the Local Plan is presented for consideration. In order to keep to the timetable agreed by members it will be critical for a decision to be reached on the proposed submission Local Plan at that meeting. This will enable subsequent publication of the Local Plan in March.

7.29 In order to identify any likely risks from the Local Plan being found unsound and therefore unable to be adopted, an advisory visit of an Inspector is being arranged for February. The purpose of this visit is not to assess the soundness of the plan but to obtain advice from an experienced Planning Inspector on any significant issues which may lead to the plan being found unsound before the Council publishes and submits its plan. This will give the Council the opportunity to review the plan and its supporting evidence and avoid abortive work.

7.30 Subject to their being no significant changes made to the Local Plan before or after publication, the next stage will be to submit the document with all of its supporting documentation and information to the Secretary of State together with the representations that have been received. At this point the Planning Inspectorate will appoint an Inspector and undertake the examination, with an examination hearing taking place normally at least 14 weeks after submission.

7.31 A Programme Officer will be identified whose task will be to organise and administer the examination under the direction and guidance of the Inspector. This person acts independently of the Council and reports only to the Inspector. The Programme Officer will liaise with those making representations to ensure that they are kept fully engaged in the examination process.

7.32 On the assumption that the Local Plan is submitted in July, it is anticipated that the examination hearing could commence in October with adoption possible in February 2015.

6.10 Appendix 1 – Leader’s Update

A Councillor workshop was held on 27 November to discuss the implications of the recent evidence based studies on the housing target and potential sites.

The following evidence based studies are still underway to provide up to date evidence to inform the plan preparation process :

• Strategic Housing Market Assessment to identify the objectively assessed need for market and affordable housing. An initial draft housing requirement technical paper is available on the Councillors ' portal area of the Intranet • Landscape Impact Study to assess the impact of the allocated sites and crucially the extent to which the landscape constrains the potential for further growth • Plan and Site Viability Study to assess the deliverability of key allocated sites and the Plan as a whole • Employment Land Study to identify the assessed economic development needs of the Borough • Transport Study to assess the impact of housing and employment growth on the transport network and the additional infrastructure measures needed to facilitate development • Retail Study to identify the assessed economic development needs of the Borough has recently been completed and is available on the website

This report (Agenda Item 6) makes recommendations on a revised plan period and housing requirement. In addition, targeted consultation is proposed to take place between 23 December and 10 February on the revised housing target and potential new sites.

The revised submission version of the Plan is due for consideration by Full Council on 24 February 2014, which will subsequently be published and representations invited between March and May 2014. The Plan will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination in July 2014 with the Examination expected in October 2014. Adoption of the Plan is due in February 2015.

In addition, Chapel-en-le-Frith Neighbourhood Plan is expected to be published by the Parish Council for consultation in the New Year. This will then be submitted to the Borough Council for the necessary checks and additional consultation, which must be undertaken prior to examination and possible referendum.

Work is underway on the Whaley Bridge and Furness Vale Neighbourhood Plan following designation of the Neighbourhood Area by the Borough Council.

6.11 Appendix 2 – List of Significant Changes to Local Plan

The following changes are those that would be the subject of further consultation:

Plan Period

Amend to 2011 - 2031

Housing requirement

Increase the Borough’s housing requirement to 360 dwellings per annum (and adjust subsequent sub-area housing requirements) to more fully meet objectively assessed need.

Employment Requirement

Increase the Borough’s employment requirement to 33.15 hectares to meet needs over plan period (subject to confirmation by update to Employment Land Study)

Site changes within the Glossopdale sub-area

Site Change G3 Roughfields Reconsider Issue and Options site G12 Bute Street Reconsider Issue and Options site G11 Land off Reconsider Issue and Options site Woodhead Road G14 Hope Street Remove from Plan as has planning permission. G15 York Street Remove from Plan as has planning permission. G17 Cliffe Road Reconsider Issue and Options site. Site not to be allocated in Plan, but built up area boundary extended to include site, so that it can contribute to the small sites allowance G18 Bank Street Site not to be allocated in Plan, but built up area boundary extended to include site, so that it can contribute to the small sites allowance G21 Dinting Site not to be allocated in Plan, but built up area boundary Road extended to include site, so that it can contribute to the small sites allowance. Boundary extension to also take in Issues and Options site G22 (Plot 3) Waterside, Change of use from employment land allocation to Primary Hadfield Employment Zone Land to the west Amendment to the Green Belt boundary to add land to the of North Road Green Belt Land off Manor Amendment to the Green Belt boundary to add land to the Park Road, north Green Belt of Cricket Ground, Old Glossop

6.12 Site Change Padfield Triangle Extend boundary of Local Green Space to include all the triangle

Site changes within the Central sub-area

Site Change Rear of Laneside Road, New site proposed for allocation (approx. 47 New Mills dwellings) Triangle of land off Pingot New site proposed to provide access to C5 and Road, New Mills adjoining field Field joining C5 and C6 New site proposed for allocation (approx. 15 New Mills dwellings) Land at Shire Croft, New site, too small for allocation (max. 6 dwellings), Reservoir Road, Whaley but built up area boundary extended to include site, Bridge so that it can contribute to the small sites allowance Furness Vale green belt Amendment to the Green Belt boundary enabling site new housing site allocation Land at New Mills Change of use proposed from employment to mixed Newtown use Land at Birch Vale Change of use proposed from Primary Employment Industrial Estate Zone to mixed use C1 Hayfield Bus Depot Remove site from Plan – criteria for allocation not met C8 Wharf Road Small site within built up area does not require housing allocation, but can contribute to the small sites allowance Land opposite Tescos, Remove site from Plan – criteria for allocation not Whaley Bridge met Old Road/Buxton Road Remove site from Plan – criteria for allocation not Whaley Bridge met C2 New Mills Road, Site not be allocated in Plan, but built up area Hayfield boundary extended to include site, so that it can contribute to the small sites allowance C9 Macclesfield Road Reconsider Issues and Options Site Whaley Bridge Kinder Road, Hayfield Amendment to the Green Belt boundary to remove land from Green Belt as does not meet criteria for green belt Land between Start Lane Amendment to the Green Belt boundary to add land and Reservoir Road, to the Green Belt Whaley Bridge

Site changes within the Buxton sub-area

Site Change B2 Land at Batham Remove site from Plan – criteria for allocation not met but Gate include within allowance for villages

6.13 Site Change Frontage to Remove site from Plan – criteria for allocation not met Cavendish Golf Club, Manchester Road B5 Ambulance Small site within built up area does not require housing Station, Buxton allocation, but can contribute to the small sites allowance B6 Hardwick Square Allocate the site specifically for extra care / elderly persons South accommodation Leek Rd / Small site within built up area, does not require housing Macclesfield Road allocation, but can contribute to the small sites allowance Tongue Lane Remove southern section of employment land allocation Hoffman Quarry Remove employment land allocation from Plan Foxlow Farm Amend employment allocation to support the creation of a local centre Station Rd / Spring Amend boundary of Regeneration area to remove land Gardens east of Bridge Street Land to north of Designate as mixed use area Station Rd Land to South of Designate as retail area Station Road Harpur Hill green Creation of a new green wedge or green fingers between wedge Harpur Hill and Buxton B11 Sherbrook Include in above green wedge. Lodge Land off Green Lane Alternative site for school playing fields on County Council owned site to east.

Significant Policy Changes

Policy EQ9 Pollution and Flood Risk - proposed to split this policy into two (Policy EQ9 Pollution Control and Unstable Land and Policy EQ10 Flood Risk Management)

Policy CF4 Provision of Open Space and Recreation Facilities - proposed to add details of sports facilities and to remove details of open space costs used to calculate developer contributions. Instead the policy will refer to a forthcoming Developer Contributions SPD.

Policy CF6 Transport and Accessibility – proposed to be amended to refer to new parking standards that will displayed as an appendix to the Local Plan. The new standards have been suggested by Derbyshire County Council.

Policy CF1 Retail and Town Centres - proposed to include support for an out- of-centre food store in New Mills. Proposals would need to be supported by an impact assessment. Explicit support for additional food stores in Buxton and Glossop to be removed. Town centre boundaries to be amended as recommended in the Retail Study update with the exception that land to the north of Station Road will be retained within the town centre to allow office and

6.14 leisure developments to come forward as part of a mixed-use scheme. Changes to include minor amendments in New Mills and Whaley Bridge. The town centre in Glossop also to be amended, most significantly in the Woods Mill area. This would retain the boundary in its current position in the adopted Local Plan (the Preferred Options Local Plan had proposed to extend the boundary further to the east to support the need for a food store as was identified at the time). The reduced boundary would mean that applications for retail, leisure and office space would need to be supported by an impact assessment and sequential site assessment. This is in response to the reduced need for a food store now identified in the Retail Study update. The Primary Shopping Area as recommended by the Retail Study for Buxton (Spring Gardens and Springs Shopping Centre) to be included in the plan and this will designate that part of the town centre as the retail core. Proposals for retail outside of the Primary Shopping Area will need to be supported by an impact assessment and sequential site assessment. In addition, the threshold for requiring retail impact assessment is proposed to be reduced from 500m2 to 200m2 as recommended by the Retail Study.

Policy S2 Settlement Hierarchy - proposed to reclassify Hadfield as a larger village / other local centre within the retail hierarchy in response to the Retail Study update (Hadfield is currently proposed to be designated as a small town centre alongside New Mills, Chapel-en-le-Frith and Whaley Bridge).

6.15 AGENDA ITEM 6

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to Council

8 April 2014

TITLE : Publication of Submission Version of High Peak Local Plan

EXECUTIVE COUNCILLOR : Cllr Godfrey Claff – Regeneration Services

CONTACT OFFICER : Dai Larner Executive Director (Place)

WARDS INVOLVED : All

Appendices Attached:

Appendix 1 – List of Significant Changes to Local Plan agreed by Council on 18 th December Appendix 2 – Summary of Responses and Related Evidence Appendix 3 – Schedule of Proposed Housing Allocations Appendix 4 – Submission Local Plan incorporating changes Appendix 5 – Submission Local Plan Policies Maps

1. Reason for the Report: To agree the outstanding elements of the submission version of the Local Plan not agreed at the Council meeting on 18 th March 2014, prior to its publication.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That, having agreed the programme for Glossopdale, Central Area and Buxton on the 18th March 2014, the Council agrees the remaining sections of the Local Plan as set out in Appendices 4 and 5 to this report as the basis of the submission version of the document;

2.2 That the Executive Director (Place) be authorised to make minor amendments necessary to ensure the accuracy, consistency and clarity of the plan in conjunction with the portfolio holder, prior to its publication.

2.3 That, subject to any changes agreed by the Council above, the submission version of the Local Plan be published for a

6.1 minimum period of 6 weeks in order to invite representations on the soundness of the document prior to its submission.

2.4 That Members note the risks to soundness identified in the report.

3. Executive Summary

3.1 Local Plans are seen by the government as key to delivering sustainable development. They should, as far as possible, reflect the aspirations of local communities and should strive to contribute towards their wider social, economic and environmental objectives.

3.2 The High Peak Local Plan is a single planning document which will, on it’s adoption, replace the current Local Plan and provide an up-to-date strategy, policies and allocations to guide development across that part of the High Peak outside the Peak District National Park.

3.3 The Local Plan has to be consistent with the government’s planning principles and policies as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and must be prepared in accordance with current Regulations and legislation. Before it can be adopted it must be prepared through engagement with local communities and organisations as well as statutory consultees and will be subject to an examination to assess its soundness.

3.4 In January 2013 the Council agreed a Preferred Options version of the Local Plan which was subject to consultation in March and April. The Council subsequently agreed further changes to the Preferred Options Local Plan in December as the basis for targeted public consultation and subsequent inclusion in the proposed submission version of the Local Plan. Public consultation on those changes took place from 27 th December 2013 to 10 th February 2014. At the Council meeting on 18 th March 2014, the Council considered the issues raised by the consultation and the latest evidence, and agreed proposals for Glossopdale, the Central Area and Buxton. This included the withdrawal from the plan of proposed site allocation C14.

3.5 This report deals with the remaining unresolved elements of the Local Plan and the implications of withdrawing site C14. The report and accompanying appendices summarise the key issues arising from the consultation and the findings and implications of the latest evidence base work.

3.6 Members are recommended to agree the Local Plan as set out in Appendix 4 and the accompanying Policies Maps in Appendix 5 as the basis for the submission version of the Local Plan for subsequent publication. It is recommended that the Executive Director (Place) be authorised to make the minor amendments necessary to ensure the accuracy, consistency and clarity of the plan in conjunction with the

6.2 portfolio holder, prior to its publication. Any duly made representations received during the publication period will be reported to the Council and considered before any decision is made to submit the Local Plan for examination.

4. How this report links to Corporate Priorities

4.1 Given the broad nature of the Local Plan, it will have direct implications for all of the Council’s corporate priorities.

5. Options and Analysis

5.1 The key decision for members is to agree the remaining elements of the submission version of the Local Plan for publication. The options for members therefore are:

5.2 Option 1 - Agree the submission version of the Local Plan as recommended in the report – this will enable the Local Plan to be published in order to invite representations on the soundness of the plan before it can be submitted for examination. The Council will have an opportunity to consider any valid representations made during the publication period and consider whether any further significant changes are needed before the Local Plan is submitted. If further significant changes are considered necessary then a further round of consultation on those changes may be necessary before the Local Plan can be submitted which would extend the timetable. New guidance or evidence issued prior to submission may also necessitate further changes to the Local Plan which would impact on the timetable of the Local Plan.

5.3 Option 2 - Do not agree the submission version of the Local Plan – the changes to the Local Plan are intended to make the plan sound for publication and subsequent submission for examination. If these are not made, or if alternative changes are made, there is a very significant risk that the Local Plan will not be found sound or that the Council may be advised by the Planning Inspectorate to reconsider the plan before any examination can take place or to withdraw the plan altogether. This would lead to a significant delay to the adoption of the Local Plan until there has been further consideration to agree suitable changes. In the meantime the authority would continue to be more vulnerable to speculative planning applications. The most significant risk lies with the proposed housing targets and the proposed housing allocations. As these are already below the objectively assessed need there is considered to be no scope for any further reduction in the housing provision. Whilst there has been agreement with Cheshire East to accommodate some of the housing needs of High Peak in Cheshire East this is not sufficient to meet the entire shortfall and there is a risk that the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy may not be found sound or may have to be modified at examination.

6.3 5.4 Option 3 - Make Other Changes to the Local Plan – depending on the nature of those changes, this would carry a similar risk to option 2 in that they may make the Local Plan unsound or lead to a recommendation from the Inspector to withdraw the plan or suspend the examination.

6. Implications

6.1 Community Safety - (Crime and Disorder Act 1998)

None directly

6.2 Workforce

None directly

6.3 Equality and Diversity/Equality Impact Assessment

This report has been prepared in accordance with the Council's Diversity and Equality Policies.

6.4 Financial Considerations

The cost of producing, publishing and consulting on the Local Plan will be borne from within the existing Forward Plans budget however costs have increased due to the need to commission additional evidence to support the Local Plan. There may also be significant additional costs to achieve submission at the end of July. This partly depends on the level of response to the publication of the local plan and the technical planning issues raised in these responses, and therefore cannot be forecast at this stage. It is likely to include short-term agency staff to input the responses that are not input automatically via the Council’s online consultation portal. It is also likely to include the use of the consultants that have produced the evidence base documents to date, in order to respond to technical issues raised in the responses in the short period of time available.

6.5 Legal

The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2012 require public participation in the preparation of the Local Plan and set out the requirements for publishing development plan documents and inviting formal representations.

6.6 Sustainability

The Local Plan has been subject to a Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulation Assessment at various stages in its preparation.

6.4

6.7 Internal and External Consultation

The Local Plan has been subject to significant internal and external consultation in its preparation and, when published, will provide a further opportunity for representations to be made on its soundness.

6.8 Risk Assessment

Risks are identified in the report, with the main risks summarised below:

• The timetable agreed by Council in July 2013 envisaged the submission document being published in March 2014 and submission in July 2014. However, as a result of the delay in agreeing the submission version of the Local Plan and subsequent publication, there is an increased risk that (a) submission in July may not be achieved without additional resources being required, and (b) that defending the soundness of the plan at examination may be more difficult because there is less time available to consider and respond to the duly made representations and for the preparation for submission. This could result in the Council’s case being weakened.

• The plan is already at an increased risk of being found unsound due to the fact that it does not propose to meet the full objectively assessed needs of the Borough. It is essential to the strength of the Council’s defence of this position that all appropriate developable sites are included in the local plan. Any sites that are not included must be supported by appropriate evidence. Without this, the risk of being found unsound increases.

• The risk of not including all sites needs to be carefully balanced against the risk of not proceeding with the local plan. As the plan progresses through the various stages of production and consultation it gathers weight, in line with the principles set out in Annex 1 of the NPPF. Publishing the plan and proceeding towards submission assists, in general terms, with the weight that can be applied to the plan in the determination of applications and appeals. This weight will be enhanced significantly once the Council can demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land.

6.5 7. Background and Detail 7.1 In January 2013 the Council agreed a Preferred Options version of the Local Plan which was subject to consultation in March and April. The Council subsequently agreed an amended timetable for the Local Plan in July 2013 in order to undertake further evidence base work to mitigate the risks to soundness arising, in particular, from a need to fully meet the objectively assessed housing needs of the Borough.

7.2 A Member workshop was subsequently held on 27 th November 2013 to consider the latest evidence base and responses to the preferred options consultation. An information pack was also distributed to all members to accompany the workshops, summarising the evidence at that time and responses to the Preferred Options consultation.

7.3 In the light of emerging findings from the evidence base studies and in order to ensure that the Local Plan, when submitted, would meet the required tests of soundness at examination (see para. 7.13 below), a number of key changes were recommended to members. At the Council meeting on 18 th December 2013, the changes to the Local Plan set out in Appendix 1 were agreed for targeted consultation and subsequent inclusion in the submission version of the Local Plan.

7.4 The next stage of the Local Plan preparation process is to publish and invite representations on the proposed submission version of the Local Plan. It should be noted that publication is not the same as consultation, as the assumption is that the Local Plan is considered by the Council at this stage to be sound. The publication period is an opportunity for those dissatisfied (or satisfied) with the proposed submission version of the Local Plan to make formal representations to the Inspector about its soundness. In publishing the proposed submission Local Plan the Council must therefore be confident that it has produced a plan which can pass the tests of soundness set out by the government in the NPPF.

7.5 The current timetable for the Local Plan, agreed by the Council in July 2013, required publication of the proposed submission Local Plan in March and subsequent submission for examination in July. However, at the special meeting of the Council on 18 th March the decision was taken not to approve the submission version of the Local Plan for publication. As a result, publication cannot now be achieved until mid- April at the earliest. This is because there are a number of steps to be undertaken, including the preparation of a consultation statement and a duty-to-cooperate statement as well as the practical arrangements for document production and publicity. It is proposed that the six-week period does not commence until after the Easter Bank Holiday weekend, commencing on Wednesday 23 April. With a minimum 6 week publication period being required, and allowing for two bank holidays within the period, , this would result in the end of the publication period being 6 June. It will then be necessary to input and

6.6 analyse all of the representations, present the findings to Council and agree to submit the Local Plan and to make arrangements for submission at the end of July. Given that there are likely to be a large number of representations and that many of these will be lengthy and detailed, there is a risk that this may not be possible, even with additional resources, as set out in 6.8 above.

Additional Consultation Responses

7.6 Consultation on the agreed changes took place for more than 6 weeks from 27 th December 2013 to 10 th February 2014. Consultation comprised of postcards or e-mails sent directly to over 2,000 people registered on the consultation database. In addition 526 “neighbour notification” letters were sent to all those living directly adjacent to 15 sites included in the consultation document. Details of the consultation were also publicised in the Buxton Advertiser and Glossop Chronicle, on High Peak radio, on Twitter, on the Council’s website and at local libraries. There were two public meetings which officers attended; one in Whaley Bridge and one in Hayfield.

7.7 In order to assist in making responses, a consultation document was produced which set out why changes were being proposed, how the development targets were changing and what changes were being suggested to sites and designated areas. This was made available on the consultation portal and the Council’s website, as well as in libraries and Council offices.

7.8 At a meeting of the Regeneration Select Committee on 11 th February a presentation was given summarising the latest evidence and main responses from the public consultation. An update was also given by the Leader of the Council at the Council meeting on 24 th February.

7.9 Current totals indicate around 2,500 representations have been received from approximately 1,250 individuals and organisations. In addition, four petitions have also been received. These are for the South of Macclesfield Road site, Whaley Bridge (375 signatures and 152 signatures), Old Glossop (372 signatures) and Kinder Road, Hayfield (13 signatures).

7.10 Appendix 2 summarises the number and nature of responses to each of the questions in the consultation document from the public and key stakeholders. The summary also highlights the key issues raised by the respondents and, for the contentious sites, the evidence which relates to those sites. The key areas of concern from responses are in respect of the following changes:

o Suggested increase in housing target o Suggested housing allocation - Roughfields, Hadfield o Suggested housing allocation - South of Macclesfield Road, Whaley Bridge

6.7 o Suggested housing allocation - Rear of Laneside Road, New Mills o Suggested housing allocation – Land off Woodhead Road, Old Glossop o Suggested housing allocation – Bute Street, Old Glossop o Suggested green belt deletion - Kinder Road, Hayfield.

Full details of all of the responses can be viewed on the consultation portal at http://highpeak-consult.objective.co.uk/portal

7.11 Officers have carefully considered all of the comments made at the additional consultation stage as well as the previous Preferred Options stage, including any supporting evidence provided by respondents, in preparing the Submission version of the Local Plan. In considering these comments, greatest weight has been given to any planning issues raised by respondents having regard to the policies in the NPPF and the Council’s own supporting evidence. Officers have also undertaken a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) to inform any decisions and taken into consideration the findings of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA).

Achieving a Sound Local Plan

7.12 Before the Local Plan can be adopted it will be examined by an independent Inspector whose role it is to assess whether the plan has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate, legal and procedural requirements and whether it is ‘sound’. The Council should only submit a plan for examination which it considers is ‘sound’.

7.13 The tests of soundness which the Local Plan will have to meet are: – ‘positively prepared’ , by meeting objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, – ‘justified’ by being based on proportionate evidence, and – ‘effective’ in terms of being deliverable over its period.

7.14 In addition, the Local Plan should be consistent with national policy in terms of enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the NPPF. The NPPF expects local authorities to plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area and to boost significantly the supply of housing.

7.15 Members will be aware that considerable work has been undertaken recently to ensure that the various tests of soundness can be met. This has included a number of significant new or updated areas of the evidence base (see para. 7.22) as well as constructive engagement with other public bodies and neighbouring Councils to meet the ‘Duty to Cooperate’ (see para. 7.32).

7.16 Two recent workshops have been held for members, on 27 th November and 4 th March, at which the requirements for achieving a sound Local

6.8 Plan were explained and the findings from various studies and their implications for the Local Plan were outlined. It was made clear at those workshops that there is a significant risk that the Local Plan would not be found sound by an Inspector. This was primarily due to the housing targets in the emerging Local Plan being substantially below the objectively assessed needs - a factor which has resulted in many plans across the country having to be withdrawn or revised.

7.17 On 14 th February, planning policy officers also held an advisory session with a senior Planning Inspector (David Vickery). The purpose of the session was to obtain advice which would help to achieve a sound plan. The Inspector was sent a copy of the emerging Local Plan at that time and was therefore able to frame his advice around the issues likely to have a bearing on the Local Plan.

7.18 The key advice from this session was:

• ‘Leave no stone unturned’ in striving to meet the full objectively assessed need for housing • Try to meet all of your own needs first – if not then look to others • Do all that is necessary to demonstrate sites can be delivered • Ensure all the evidence is up-to-date and backs up the Local Plan • Think carefully before submitting a plan which would not meet government policy

7.19 The clear message from all quarters is that the Council should rigorously assess the Local Plan before it is published and submitted to ensure that it is a plan which it thinks is sound. The document published should be the document the Council intends to submit for examination, subject to any further changes arising from the representations it receives. The legislation 1 specifically provides that a Council must not submit the Plan unless it considers the document is ready for examination.

7.20 The key issues for the Council to consider before approving the Local Plan for publication therefore are: • Does the plan go as far as possible in fully meeting the objectively assessed need for housing as required by the NPPF? • Is there sufficient evidence to show that the significant and demonstrable adverse impacts of meeting those needs should outweigh the NPPF policies? • Has the Council done all it can to try to meet any shortfall in provision in another local authority area? • Does the Local Plan meet the other development needs of the Borough in accordance with the NPPF and the strategy of the plan? • Are the key sites which are critical to the delivery of the plan identified and deliverable?

1 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended)

6.9 The NPPG (now called the PPG – Planning Practice Guidance) was published on 6 March and will form part of the examination process, as both respondents and the inspector will consider how the Local Plan performs against the PPG. The final version of the PPG places a much stronger emphasis on the positive regeneration of brownfield land, and supports the Local Plan’s focus on ‘industrial legacy sites’ and their effective reuse to help meet the objectively assessed needs of the Borough. This sits alongside a reaffirming of the NPPF’s policies on the protection of greenbelt. The PPG also refers to prematurity and the grounds on which this may be used to refuse planning applications; the impact must potential undermine the development approach in the emerging Local Plan, but it must be noted that ‘prematurity will seldom be justified where a draft local plan has yet to be submitted for examination…’.

Evidence Base Findings

7.21 The evidence base is not examined in itself, but it should back up the soundness of the Local Plan and the course of action chosen. It is crucial therefore that any decisions made by the Council to the Local Plan are fully supported by the evidence.

7.22 The key studies which have been produced to inform the Local Plan are: • Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) • Employment Land Review • Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) • Landscape Impact Assessment • Plan & Site Viability Study • Retail Study • Transport Study In addition, there is an update to the Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment which is still being prepared in partnership with the other Derbyshire authorities.

7.23 The latest findings from these studies have been made available to members at the recent workshops, and in the information packs sent to members. To recap, the key findings are:

• The SHMA identifies an objectively assessed need for housing of 420 – 470 dwellings per annum and an annual affordable housing need of 528 dwellings (net) per annum • Employment Land Review identifies an objectively assessed need for employment of 25 – 65 hectares of land over plan period • Landscape Impact Assessment demonstrates that much of the Borough’s landscape allows only for limited development • SHLAA indicates an assessed maximum capacity of 360 dwellings/annum

6.10 • Plan & Site Viability Study demonstrates that plan is considered viable but there are issues over phasing and access with some sites • Transport Study identifies key congestion ‘hotspots’ and mitigation measures required to address the cumulative impact of the proposed development sites but does not consider sites to be undeliverable • Retail Study confirms a reduced quantitative need for foodstore in Glossop and Buxton

7.24 Officers have used this evidence, and other relevant and valid evidence from consultees and the public, as well as the SA and HRA, to inform the submission version of the Local Plan ensuring, in particular, the housing and employment targets reflect the assessed needs as far as is possible given the evidence of environmental and infrastructure constraints and other significant assets. The sites identified in the Submission Local Plan are also those which are considered by members to be suitable and deliverable. It is acknowledged that there are issues associated with some sites which require further investigation to identify appropriate mitigation measures or actions, but these are not considered to be of such a scale or significance, at this stage, as to make their delivery threatened. If, following further investigation, it does emerge that these issues cannot be resolved then officers will report this to members and make appropriate recommendations for changes to the Local Plan before submission.

Meeting the Objectively Assessed Needs

7.25 The NPPF (para. 47) requires local authorities to ‘ boost significantly the supply of housing ’ by using their evidence base to ensure that the Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area ‘ as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework ’. This is interpreted as meaning that the Local Plan should strive to fully meet the objectively assessed needs (OAN) for High Peak having regard to any significant and demonstrable environmental and infrastructure constraints which may limit capacity. For High Peak this means the Peak District National Park and any impacts on the National Park and its setting from the development of land outside it, the Green Belt taking account of potential areas which could be removed if they do not serve the 5 purposes of the Green Belt (para. 80 of the NPPF 2), designated areas of wildlife interest, European sites of wildlife protection, areas which are subject to significant development constraints (such as Flood Zone 3 areas), areas of identified landscape or amenity value, and major infrastructure constraints which could not be overcome. All of these constraints on capacity need to be supported by robust evidence.

2 The 5 purposes are to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and, to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other land.

6.11 7.26 The objectively assessed need (OAN) for housing for High Peak has been identified as being between 420 and 470 dwellings per annum 3. This is equivalent to 8,400 to 9,400 dwellings over the plan period. The bottom end of this range broadly corresponds to the latest CLG projections (plus allowance for vacancy and backlog) whilst at the top end it would meet pent up demand. This range would also help address the high level of affordable housing need which has been assessed at 528 dwellings per annum (net) and would exceed the economic growth forecasts identified in the Employment Land Review.

7.27 The implication of pursuing a housing requirement in this range must be considered in the context of the wider Housing Market Area and the prospects of delivering this scale of housing on sites within the plan area. This is particularly the case for High Peak given the significant policy and environmental constraints which restrict the scope for development across much of the Borough and the strategic highway constraints which impact on capacity for growth.

7.28 The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) published in June 2009 and updated in 2014 has provided evidence about the extent to which potential exists across the plan area to accommodate the growth required by the SHMA. It indicates that whilst there is potential within and on the edge of the main settlements in the Local Plan area to accommodate growth, much of this is within the green belt or on sites which are unlikely to be deliverable within the plan period. This document has been updated following the previous consultations to include additional areas of land. The Landscape Impact Assessment also found that some of the potential housing sites would have a significant landscape impact whilst much of the plan area around the Market Towns and Larger Villages is constrained in terms of development options due to its landscape character. The Landscape Impact Assessment also does not consider that there is any significant scope for green belt boundary changes to accommodate more development. The Plan and Site Viability Study has also identified issues over access to serve several major housing sites in Buxton which may undermine delivery until later in the plan period.

7.29 The Local Plan housing target has been informed by the evidence of capacity from these various studies. Information has been gathered on capacity, constraints and opportunities and it is considered that the objectively assessed housing need range is not deliverable. There are very significant constraints on the capacity of the plan area to physically accommodate the amount of development required by the OAN and this is particularly so in terms of environmental considerations with limited scope to amend green belt boundaries. With a limited legacy of derelict or vacant sites, these natural and policy boundaries define and limit the outward expansion of the key settlements.

3 High Peak Objective Assessment of Need – Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners – February 2014

6.12 7.30 This evidence has been used to establish an alternative housing target of 360 dwellings per annum , which it is considered can be delivered and reflects the identified infrastructure and environmental constraints. An SA has also been undertaken, the findings of which support this level of provision. This would generate a need for 7,200 new dwellings over the plan period and, after allowing for completions, commitments, the National Park contribution and the shortfall since 2006, would result in a net requirement of 4,839 dwellings to be identified on new sites across the plan area (table 1 below).

Table 1 – Housing Requirements Housing Target (2011 - 2031) 7,200 Completions (2011 - 2013) -309 Commitments (as at March 2014) 4 -2,022 Peak District National Park contribution (2011 – 2013) -110 Shortfall in housing provision since 2006 +80 Net housing requirement 4,839

7.31 In terms of employment need, the Employment Land Review Update has identified an objectively assessed need of 25 – 65 hectares of land over the plan period. The bottom end of the range of the land requirement (25ha) reflects employment forecasts for jobs within sectors with a need for B use class land. The top of the range (65ha) relates to the past take up of employment land in High Peak with an additional allowance for the replacement of estimated losses of employment land and two years additional supply to provide a margin for choice. The Preferred Options Local Plan identified provision for 29.2 hectares based on the previous Employment Land Review target. This is proposed to be increased to 35.5 hectares to reflect the recommendations of the latest Employment Land Review Update.

Duty to Cooperate

7.32 The fact that the Local Plan's housing target does not match the objectively assessed full housing requirement means that there is a ‘duty to cooperate’ with the Borough’s neighbouring local authorities. Many of the Borough’s neighbouring areas also face similar challenges in meeting housing requirements. In accordance with government guidance, officers have been engaging constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with these neighbouring authorities with regard to addressing any shortfall to ensure the full objectively assessed needs of High Peak can be met.

7.33 The outcome of those discussions so far is that Cheshire East will make some provision to assist in meeting the needs of High Peak during the plan period. The authority has strong migration and commuting linkages with High Peak and a desire to mitigate the impact of housing in High Peak on their areas and the Peak District National Park which is also a significant tourism asset. Cheshire East Council

4 Comprises of sites with planning permission, under construction and other deliverable sites

6.13 also recognises that previous housing restraint policies have probably directed some residential development to High Peak. Associated with this are transport movements in the A6 corridor, which are causing severe traffic congestion that is likely to be further exacerbated by additional development in High Peak.

7.34 The Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy, which has recently been approved for publication and submission, does therefore make provision in policy PG1 for up to 500 homes to assist in meeting the housing needs of High Peak during 2020 - 2030. A Memorandum of Understanding with Cheshire East Council will set out the number of dwellings to be delivered within their respective boundaries and the phasing for their delivery. It should be noted however that any provision in Cheshire East is to assist in meeting the shortfall of 1,200 dwellings between the lower end of the OAN range and the provision in the Local Plan and should not be seen as an opportunity to reduce the provision in the High Peak Local Plan below the recommended 360 dwellings per annum.

7.35 Officers are also working positively with the Environment Agency, Natural England and Severn-Trent Water Authority to address issues of potentially high levels of phosphates on environmentally sensitive parts of the River Wye at Buxton to ensure this does not impede the delivery of allocated sites in Buxton. Some substantial progress has been made on this issue and efforts will continue to be made.

Green Belt Boundary Changes

7.36 In order to ensure that the boundaries of the green belt are appropriate and will endure for and beyond the plan period, and demonstrate that all options have been explored for meeting the objectively assessed needs for housing, the Landscape Impact Assessment has reviewed the Green Belt around the Market Towns and Larger Villages against the 5 purposes of the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF and made recommendations for where Green Belt boundary changes may be appropriate to enable development to be accommodated or to help check unrestricted sprawl.

7.37 Only minor deletions from the Green Belt were able to be identified at Furness Vale and Kinder Road, Hayfield. The Landscape Impact Assessment also identified some additional areas for inclusion within the Green Belt to the north and east of Glossop and to the north-west of Whaley Bridge. Officers have consulted on these recommended changes and assessed how they would assist in meeting the needs of the Borough. The Planning Minister, Nick Boles, wrote an open letter to the Planning Inspectorate in March 2014, clarifying his position on the review of greenbelt designations and making it clear that changes to boundaries should be made in exceptional cases only. Given this, and the consultation responses, it has been concluded that overall there would be no net benefit in undertaking these green belt boundary

6.14 changes during the plan period as they would not substantially assist in providing more housing, other than at Furness Vale (which was previously proposed for housing in the Preferred Options Local Plan). It is therefore recommended that the only green belt boundary change should be at Furness Vale.

Housing Allocations

7.38 In order to meet the requirements in Table 1 it was recommended at the meeting on 18 th March 2014 that all of the additional consultation housing sites be included in the Submission Local Plan. Officers had carefully considered the concerns raised in the responses but conclude that there are no planning reasons for not including these sites. The evidence supports their inclusion (see Appendix 2) and where there are issues highlighted these are considered to be matters which can be addressed through further investigation. Despite the withdrawal of site C14, it will be necessary to investigate the reasons for removal further as part of this exercise.

7.39 Appendix 3 identifies all of the proposed housing allocations recommended for inclusion in the Submission Local Plan. Together these sites will provide 3,100 dwellings. There would also be potentially an additional 1,200 dwellings from smaller sites and 42 from the Chapel Neighbourhood Plan allocations. This would give a potential supply of 4,342 dwellings which is 497 dwellings below the net requirement of 4,839 dwellings. As members are aware there are also a number of applications currently pending or subject to appeal which, if allowed, would meet this gap. However, these cannot be relied on at this stage and therefore all available sites identified in the Preferred Options Local Plan and the additional consultation must be included. If any of these sites are not taken forward there is a significant risk that the Local Plan would not be found sound unless there were substantial evidence to justify their non-inclusion.

7.40 At the meeting of the Council on 18 th March, it was decided to remove housing allocation C14 (Rear of Laneside Road, New Mills) from the submission version of the Local Plan. The delivery of this site was assessed at 47 dwellings for the later phase of the plan period. Evidence and information from the viability study and the landscape impact assessment and from the County Council indicated that this site was suitable and viable to develop subject to appropriate landscape mitigation measures, securing third party agreement to access the site and educational contributions. As this site was not proposed to be delivered until later the plan period, it was considered that these issues could be addressed to ensure its delivery at the appropriate time.

7.41 As a consequence of the deletion of this site, there will be a reduction in the number of dwellings provided over the plan period from 6,830 to 6,783 dwellings. Any reduction in housing provision places the Local Plan at greater risk of being found unsound, particularly bearing in mind

6.15 that there is already a significant shortfall of 1,570 dwellings against the bottom of the objectively assessed need range (8,400 - 6,830). Whilst it could be argued that there is an element of uncertainty in terms of the exact number of dwellings which may be delivered over the plan period and therefore a 1% reduction is not significant (47 of 4,389 dwellings on allocated sites) it would be difficult to argue at an examination that the Council had explored all possible sites for development if a site deemed otherwise developable is taken out. However, in response to the consultation feedback, Members were concerned about ground conditions on that site from previous mining activity in the area amongst other things, and decided to remove the site. If, upon further investigation, it is not possible to support these concerns with sufficient evidence then the credibility of the Local Plan could be jeopardised.

The Submission Local Plan

7.42 The proposed Submission Local Plan is set out in Appendix 4 and the accompanying maps identifying the allocations and changes to designations in Appendix 5. Changes to the Local Plan from the Preferred Options version are highlighted – additions in red underlined and deletions with a strikethrough. It should be noted that whilst the policies and supporting text have been updated there is still text in the introductory section and appendices which need to be completed for the publication of the plan. It is recommended that the Executive Director (Place) be authorised to make minor amendments necessary to ensure the accuracy, consistency and clarity of the plan in conjunction with the portfolio holder, including updating wording in the policies to reflect the advice from the flood risk and Habitats Regulations Assessment, ensuring consistency of the DS policies with CF1 – Town Centres and Retailing, and other issues arising from the PPG. Minor amendments will be made to Appendix 5 to ensure greater accuracy, clarity and consistency with policies elsewhere in the plan.

7.43 The following sections of this report summarise the various components of the Submission Local Plan document and the main changes from the previous Preferred Options Local Plan.

The Vision and Objectives

7.44 The Vision describes what the Borough should be like in 15-20 years time whilst the objectives indicate the broad direction that the more detailed strategy and policy measures should take and provide the basis for subsequent targets and indicators. Both the vision and the objectives from the Preferred Options Local Plan have remained substantially unchanged.

6.16 The Development Approach and Spatial Strategy

7.45 The preferred development approach continues to apply the principles relating to the distribution of development which were established in the Preferred Options Local Plan and which has subsequently been confirmed through consultation as being the most appropriate. This means:

• Safeguarding the sensitive boundaries of the National Park. • Concentrating development on the Market Towns – focusing primarily on previously developed sites. • Providing modest development within the larger villages, of an appropriate scale, where opportunities exist to contribute towards the overall requirements. • Supporting limited development in the smaller villages to meet local rural needs. • Essential development only in the open countryside and Green Belt.

7.46 The Spatial Strategy is key to delivering the overall vision for High Peak and provides the context for the subsequent policies. It continues to be based around the 3 overarching themes with emphasis on ensuring that all development contributes to local distinctiveness and protecting the landscape and setting of the Borough, supporting and enhancing in a sustainable manner the economy of the High Peak and ensuring that the needs of local communities are adequately met to ensure they continue to thrive and have a high quality of life. There is an increased emphasis in the Submission Local Plan on ensuring that all development should contribute to and not erode landscape character as identified in the Landscape Impact Assessment (para. 4.26) and on protecting the Peak District National Park (para. 4.27).

7.47 The proposed Submission Local Plan is now based on a plan period which runs from 2011 to 2031 in order to provide a 15 year time horizon from anticipated adoption, as advised in the NPPF, and to have a base date which reflects the latest data on population, households and employment.

Strategic Policies

7.48 The key changes to the policies are:

• Policy S1 (Sustainable Development Principles) – minor changes only; • Policy (SS1a) (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) – new policy added as advised by the Planning Inspectorate. This is a standard model policy which all Local Plans are required to incorporate to reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development at the heart of the NPPF; • Policy S2 (Settlement Hierarchy) - no changes made to the hierarchy of settlements. Hadfield identified as a larger village centre in hierarchy of retail centres. Minor changes to wording to clarify policy intentions;

6.17 • Policy S3 (Strategic Housing Development) – changes to housing requirements to reflect those agreed by Council at its meeting on 18 th December based on 360 dwellings per annum but with distribution based on a range for each sub-area in order to give flexibility in the delivery of housing for each sub-area (see Table 2 below):

Table 2 – Sub-Area Housing Distribution Sub-Area % of Borough No. of Dwellings on new Total sites Glossopdale 27-35% 1,307 -1,694 Central 30-33% 1,452 - 1,597 Buxton 32-43% 1,548 - 2,081

In terms of how these requirements will be met, the allowances for small sites have been increased to reflect a higher threshold for the allocation of sites (see Table 3 below):

Table 3 - How the Requirement will be met on new sites Sub-area Number of Dwellings on new sites Glossopdale - Glossop Small Sites 250 - Villages Small Sites 150 - Allocations 907 - 1,294 TOTAL TARGET PROVISION 1,307 -1,694

Central Area - Chapel Neighbourhood Plan Small Sites 100 - New Mills Small Sites 100 - Whaley Bridge Small Sites 100 - Villages Small Sites 100 - Allocations (excluding Chapel Parish) 1,052 - 1,197 TOTAL TARGET PROVISION 1,452 -1,597

Buxton - Buxton Small Sites 300 - Villages Small Sites 100 - Allocations 1,148 - 1,681 TOTAL TARGET PROVISION 1,548 - 2,081

Policy S3 also establishes a requirement for the Chapel Neighbourhood Plan of a minimum of 850 dwellings to be delivered over the plan period in addition to a small sites allowance, but this may be exceeded to help meet the needs of the Borough. The 850 dwellings reflects recent completions, commitments and the proposed allocations in the Neighbourhood Plan. Policy S3 also makes reference to how the Council is working with adjoining authorities to provide sufficient housing during the plan period to assist in meeting the full objectively assessed housing need of High Peak and that in Cheshire East provision will be made for up to 500 dwellings during the period 2020 to 2030;

6.18 • Policy S4 (Maintaining and Enhancing an Economic Base) - increased employment land requirement over the plan period to 35.5 hectares (plus past completions) to reflect recommendations of the Employment Land Review Update; • Policy S5 (Glossopdale Sub-area Strategy) - updated to improve clarity and give additional protection to sites designated for environmental protection and historic assets. Includes identification of strategic gap between Glossop and Hadfield, Local Green Spaces at George Street, Glossop and Padfield. These may need to be reviewed in the light of the recently published PPG. Also includes reference to enabling transport improvements and mitigation measures identified the High Peak Transport Study; • Policy S6 (Central Sub-area Strategy) - updated to improve clarity and give additional protection to sites designated for environmental protection and historic assets. Includes additional guidance on new foodstore for New Mills and reference to enabling transport improvements and mitigation measures identified in the A6 corridor study and the High Peak Transport Study. Also includes reference to additional parking for rail stations and new rail station to serve Chapel. Site C14 has been removed from this section of the plan in line with the Council’s decision on 18 th March 2014; • Policy S7 (Buxton Sub-area Strategy) - updated to improve clarity and give additional protection to sites designated for environmental protection and historic assets. Specific reference made to identifying appropriate mitigation measures to protect water quality on the River Wye. Includes identification of green wedge between Harpur Hill and Buxton. Also includes reference to new Local Centre at Harpur Hill, supporting improvements for cycling, safeguarding the route of the Fairfield Link Road and enabling transport improvements and mitigation measures identified in the A6 Corridor and the High Peak Transport Study.

Development Management Policies

7.49 The key changes to the policies are:

Environment • Policy EQ1 (Climate Change) – updated to improve clarity, give additional protection for landscape and European sites and changes to requirements for Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM to take account of viability; • Policy EQ2 (Landscape Character) – updated to improve clarity and give additional landscape protection; • Policy EQ3 (Countryside Development) – reference to green belts included. Changes to requirements for conversions. Additional protection for landscape and National Park; • Policy EQ4 (Biodiversity) – enhanced protection for European sites; • Policy EQ5 (Design and Place Making) – minor changes only;

6.19 • Policy EQ6 (Built and Historic Environment) – additional policy measures included as advised by English Heritage; • Policy EQ7 (Green Infrastructure) – minor changes only; • Policy EQ8 (Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows) - minor changes only; • Policy EQ9 (Pollution and Flood Risk) – split into 2 policies covering pollution control and unstable land (EQ9) and flood risk management (EQ11).

Economy • Policy E1 (New Employment Development) – minor changes only; • Policy E2 (Employment Land Allocations); • Policy E3 (Primary Employment Zones) – additional reference to B1b/c uses and town centre and other economic uses. No changes to areas identified as PEZs; • Policy E4 (Change of Use on Existing Business land and Premises) – further clarification of requirements to be met for changes of use; • Policy E5 (Regenerating an Industrial Legacy) – minor policy wording changes. Addition of Birch Vale Industrial Estate and New Mills, Newtown to list of sites suitable for regeneration; • Policy E6 (Promoting Peak District Tourism and Culture) – minor changes only; • Policy E7 (Chalet Accommodation, Caravan and Camp Site Developments) – no changes.

Housing • Policy H1 (Location of Housing Development) – minor changes only; • Policy H2 (Phased Housing |Development) – no changes; • Policy H3 (Housing Allocations) – see appendix 3 for list of proposed sites; • Policy H4 (New Housing Development) – no changes; • Policy H5 (Affordable Housing) – minor changes only; • Policy H6 (Rural Exception Sites) – minor change only; • Policy H7 (Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show People) – deletion of requirement for proven need as contrary to government guidance and reference in supporting text to new GTAA being prepared.

Community Facilities and Services • Policy CF1 (Retail and Town Centres) – include recommendations of latest Retail Study in relation to New Mills, Glossop and Buxton; • Policy CF2 (Primary Shopping Areas and Frontages) – minor changes only; • Policy CF3 (Local Infrastructure Provision) – minor changes only; • Policy CF4 (Open Spaces and Recreation Areas) – additional reference to sports and deletion of standards of provision which will be set out now in a Developer Contributions SPD;

6.20 • Policy CF5 (Provision and Retention of Local Community Services and Facilities) – minor changes only; • Policy CF6 (Accessibility) – additional references to enabling transport improvements and mitigation measures identified in the A6 corridor study and the High Peak Transport Study, reference to new local parking standards and funding for transport improvements through CIL or developer contributions; • Policy CF7 (Developer Contributions) – reference to Developer Contributions SPD to be produced.

7.50 The Strategic Development Sites policies (DS1 – DS17) have been updated to reflect changes to the allocations and new evidence. This incorporates the erratum to Policy DS9 – Britannia Mill, presented at the 18 th March 2014 Council meeting. Further amendments may be necessary prior to publication to reflect the latest factual information and evidence.

Conclusions

7.51 In terms of the questions posed in para. 7.20, it is an essential requirement of soundness that the plan goes as far as possible in meeting the objectively assessed needs for housing. Having regard to the environmental and infrastructure constraints identified in the evidence, it is considered that 360 dwellings represents the maximum capacity for housing growth. This exceeds the past average rate of housing delivery and therefore is boosting housing growth in accordance with government policy and will help meet the considerable unmet affordable housing need of the Borough. It will also meet economic growth forecasts.

7.52 It is acknowledged that there are still issues with some sites regarding their delivery which require further investigation, notably in respect of school capacity and provision, and highway mitigation measures. However, at this stage none of these issues are considered to be of such significance as to render any of the sites undeliverable during the plan period. This stance has been boosted by the recently published PPG, which makes it clear that there can be less certainty about sites in the 11-15 year phase of a local plan.

7.53 Notwithstanding this advice, the deletion of site C14 has increased the risk of the plan being found unsound if there is not robust evidence to justify its removal. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is flexibility in the Local Plan for the housing numbers to vary over the plan period, the Council must be able to demonstrate to an Inspector that it has endeavoured to include all suitable housing sites in striving to meet the objectively assessed need. However, as set out earlier, it is important that this risk is balanced against the risk of not proceeding at all with a local plan.

6.21 Next Stages

7.54 The next stage of the Local Plan preparation process is the publication and submission of the final document. Before a council submits a development plan document to the Secretary of State, it must publish and make available the documents it proposes to submit. The development plan document is published in order for representations (relating to issues of soundness) to be made which must then be taken into account at the examination. Unlike previous consultation, this is a formal process which must follow the requirements set out in the Regulations and be for a minimum of 6 weeks.

7.55 The documents to be published and submitted comprise of: • the Local Plan (as proposed to be submitted) and accompanying Policies Maps • the sustainability appraisal report • a statement setting out: who was invited to be involved in the plan preparation, how they were invited to be involved in the plan preparation, a summary of the main issues raised and how they have been addressed • any other supporting documents relevant to the preparation of the development plan document.

7.56 The statutory regulations require that the authority makes copies of these documents available for inspection at local Council offices and on the website and that it send a statement of the representations procedure to consultation bodies, and that the Local Plan is available for inspection . Representations must be made within a 6 week period from the date these documents are made available.

7.57 After the 6 week period for making representations, a summary of the main issues raised by the representation received will be produced. If the Council resolves to submit the plan for examination these representations will go forward to be considered at the Examination. Further changes to the document are not encouraged at this stage since this should already have taken place during the plan preparation process. The underlying premise should be that the plan is considered sound by the Council at the time it is published . However, in preparing the summary it may be that certain representations will cause the Council to question its earlier view that the development plan document is sound. This emphasis on the view of the council is critical, as by definition any representation objecting to the development plan document will claim that it is not sound. New evidence arising from studies still underway or a refresh of those studies or new government guidance may also necessitate some significant changes to the plan before it can be submitted. It is noted for example, that the government is expected to publish updated household projections later this year. Depending on the projections for High Peak, these may have implications for the submission of the Local

6.22 Plan (as they will be relevant to the consideration of the local plan at the examination).

7.58 Any significant changes which affect the plan, such as a new allocation or policy or a change to a proposed allocation which had not previously been consulted on, will need to be subject to a period of targeted consultation and a subsequent sustainability appraisal to ensure that the Council has considered the views of local residents, organisations and other interested parties and its impact before it agrees to submit the Local Plan for examination. This would delay submission of the plan, and hence the anticipated examination and adoption.

7.59 Once the representations have been summarised, all specific documentation and information should be submitted to the Secretary of State with the representations that have been received in addition to the Local Plan itself and the supporting evidence. At this point the Planning Inspectorate will appoint an Inspector and undertake the Examination, which is normally at least 14 weeks after submission.

7.60 A Programme Officer will be identified whose task will be to organise and administer the examination under the direction and guidance of the Inspector. This person acts independently of the Council and reports only to the Inspector. The Programme Officer will liaise with those making representations to ensure that they are kept fully engaged in the examination process. Initial arrangements are being investigated.

7.61 On the assumption that the Local Plan is submitted at the end of July, it is anticipated that the examination hearing could commence in November with adoption possible in March 2015.

Dai Larner Executive Director (Place)

Web Links and Location Contact details Background Papers Town & Country Planning Glossop Perry Wardle Regulations (Regeneration Manager) Consultation Responses on http://highpeak- consult.objective.co.uk/portal Evidence Base documents on http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/hp/cou ncil-services/local-development- framework/evidence-base

6.23 Appendix 1 – List of Significant Changes to Local Plan agreed by Council on 18 th December 2013

Plan Period • Amend to 2011 - 2031

Housing requirement • Increase the Borough’s housing requirement to 360 dwellings per annum (and adjust subsequent sub-area housing requirements) to more fully meet objectively assessed need.

Employment Requirement • Increase the Borough’s employment requirement to 33.15 hectares to meet needs over plan period (subject to confirmation by update to Employment Land Study)

Site changes within the Glossopdale sub-area • G3 Roughfields - Reconsider Issue and Options site • G12 Bute Street - Reconsider Issue and Options site • G11 Land off Woodhead Road - Reconsider Issue and Options site • G14 Hope Street - Remove from Plan as has planning permission. • G15 York Street - Remove from Plan as has planning permission. • G17 Cliffe Road - Reconsider Issue and Options site. Site not to be allocated in Plan, but built up area boundary extended to include site, so that it can contribute to the small sites allowance • G18 Bank Street - Site not to be allocated in Plan, but built up area boundary extended to include site, so that it can contribute to the small sites allowance • G21 Dinting Road - Site not to be allocated in Plan, but built up area boundary extended to include site, so that it can contribute to the small sites allowance. Boundary extension to also take in Issues and Options site G22 (Plot 3) • Waterside, Hadfield - Change of use from employment land allocation to Primary Employment Zone • Land to the west of North Road - Amendment to the Green Belt boundary to add land to the Green Belt • Land off Manor Park Road, north of Cricket Ground, Old Glossop - Amendment to the Green Belt boundary to add land to the Green Belt • Padfield Triangle - Extend boundary of Local Green Space to include all the triangle

Site changes within the Central sub-area • Rear of Laneside Road, New Mills - New site proposed for allocation (approx. 47 • dwellings) • Triangle of land off Pingot Road, New Mills - New site proposed to provide access to C5 and adjoining field • Field joining C5 and C6, New Mills - New site proposed for allocation (approx. 15 • dwellings) • Land at Shire Croft,Reservoir Road, Whaley Bridge - New site, too small for allocation (max. 6 dwellings), but built up area boundary extended to include site so that it can contribute to the small sites allowance • Furness Vale green belt site - Amendment to the Green Belt boundary enabling new housing site allocation

6. 24 • Land at New Mills Newtown - Change of use proposed from employment to mixed • use • Land at Birch Vale Industrial Estate - Change of use proposed from Primary Employment Zone to mixed use • C1 Hayfield Bus Depot Remove site from Plan – criteria for allocation not met • C8 Wharf Road Small site within built up area does not require housing allocation, but can contribute to the small sites allowance • Land opposite Tescos, Whaley Bridge - Remove site from Plan – criteria for allocation not met • Old Road/Buxton Road, Whaley Bridge - Remove site from Plan – criteria for allocation not met • C2 New Mills Road, Hayfield - Site not be allocated in Plan, but built up area boundary extended to include site, so that it can contribute to the small sites allowance • C9 Macclesfield Road, Whaley Bridge - Reconsider Issues and Options Site • Kinder Road, Hayfield - Amendment to the Green Belt boundary to remove land from Green Belt as does not meet criteria for green belt • Land between Start Lane and Reservoir Road, Whaley Bridge - Amendment to the Green Belt boundary to add land to the Green Belt

Site changes within the Buxton sub-area • B2 Land at Batham Gate - Remove site from Plan – criteria for allocation not met but include within allowance for villages • Frontage to Cavendish Golf Club, Manchester Road - Remove site from Plan – criteria for allocation not met • B5 Ambulance Station, Buxton - Small site within built up area does not require housing allocation, but can contribute to the small sites allowance • B6 Hardwick Square South - Allocate the site specifically for extra care / elderly persons accommodation • Leek Rd / Macclesfield Road - Small site within built up area, does not require housing allocation, but can contribute to the small sites allowance • Tongue Lane - Remove southern section of employment land allocation • Hoffman Quarry - Remove employment land allocation from Plan Foxlow Farm Amend employment allocation to support the creation of a local centre • Station Rd / Spring Gardens - Amend boundary of Regeneration area to remove land east of Bridge Street • Land to north of Station Rd - Designate as mixed use area • Land to South of Station Road - Designate as retail area • Harpur Hill green wedge - Creation of a new green wedge or green fingers between Harpur Hill and Buxton • B11 Sherbrook Lodge - Include in above green wedge. • Land off Green Lane - Alternative site for school playing fields on County Council owned site to east.

Significant Policy Changes • Policy EQ9 Pollution and Flood Risk - proposed to split this policy into two (Policy EQ9 Pollution Control and Unstable Land and Policy EQ10 Flood Risk Management) • Policy CF4 Provision of Open Space and Recreation Facilities - proposed to add details of sports facilities and to remove details of open space costs used to calculate

6. 25 developer contributions. Instead the policy will refer to a forthcoming Developer Contributions SPD. • Policy CF6 Transport and Accessibility – proposed to be amended to refer to new parking standards that will displayed as an appendix to the Local Plan. The new standards have been suggested by Derbyshire County Council. • Policy CF1 Retail and Town Centres - proposed to include support for an out-of- centre food store in New Mills. Proposals would need to be supported by an impact assessment. Explicit support for additional food stores in Buxton and Glossop to be removed. Town centre boundaries to be amended as recommended in the Retail Study update with the exception that land to the north of Station Road will be retained within the town centre to allow office and leisure developments to come forward as part of a mixed-use scheme. Changes to include minor amendments in New Mills and Whaley Bridge. The town centre in Glossop also to be amended, most significantly in the Woods Mill area. This would retain the boundary in its current position in the adopted Local Plan (the Preferred Options Local Plan had proposed to extend the boundary further to the east to support the need for a food store as was identified at the time). The reduced boundary would mean that applications for retail, leisure and office space would need to be supported by an impact assessment and sequential site assessment. This is in response to the reduced need for a food store now identified in the Retail Study update. The Primary Shopping Area as recommended by the Retail Study for Buxton (Spring Gardens and Springs Shopping Centre) to be included in the plan and this will designate that part of the town centre as the retail core. Proposals for retail outside of the Primary Shopping Area will need to be supported by an impact assessment and sequential site assessment. In addition, the threshold for requiring retail impact assessment is proposed to be reduced from 500m2 to 200m2 as recommended by the Retail Study. • Policy S2 Settlement Hierarchy - proposed to reclassify Hadfield as a larger village / other local centre within the retail hierarchy in response to the Retail Study update (Hadfield is currently proposed to be designated as a small town centre alongside New Mills, Chapel-en-le-Frith and Whaley Bridge).

6. 26 Appendix 2 – Summary of Responses Received to Additional Consultation and Related Evidence

Please note, the numbers set out in the tables below are prepared according to the best available information at this time. Work to transfer all letters and e- mails onto the consultation web-site is on-going. Once this work has been completed final representation numbers will be available.

Development Targets

Question Q1. Amend plan period to 2011 – 2031 ?

Number 84 representations In support: 26 received Objections: 51 Other: 7 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : No views comments DCC : supports proposal to extend the Local Plan period to 2031. Summary Level of growth proposed is too high. points raised Infrastructure is not sufficient. by public

Question Q2. Increase target to 360pa ?

Number 95 representations In support: 16 received Objections: 72 Other: 7 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : the Habitats Regulation comments Assessment draft Feb 2013 indicates that a number of factors relating to impacts on European Sites (SACs and SPAs) could constrain the growth of housing and built development within High Peak. Particular concern regarding phosphates in the River Wye and the ability to deliver planned growth in Buxton. DCC : In the light of the NPPF and Planning Inspectors’ reports on Local Plans that stress the need to meet in full objectively assessed need, it is acknowledged that HPBC’s preferred target of 270 homes would be difficult to justify in the face of this latest evidence. Conversely, it is agreed that the objectively assessed need figure of over 400 new homes pa would not be deliverable without significant impacts on the Green Belt, landscape character, infrastructure needs and the supply and safeguarding of mineral reserves. DCC has doubts about HPBC’s ability to deliver the higher level of housing provision currently proposed. Additionally, from an infrastructure planning and delivery point of view, DCC would prefer a greater

6. 27 proportion of the housing to be located at larger sites and for the small sites allowance to be reduced. Summary • Too many new homes. points raised • Not meeting Objectively Assessed Need. by public

Glossopdale

Question Q3. G3, Roughfields, Hadfield

Number 193 representations In support: 7 received Objections: 183 Other: 3 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : have not assessed this site comments and there is no known biodiversity data on its status. Natural England : mitigation measures should be considered to avoid significant adverse effects on the landscape and the setting of the National Park. Summary • Increased pressure on infrastructure. points raised • Loss of gap between Hadfield and Padfield. by public • Loss of green space. Evidence Base Landscape Impact Assessment : area identified as having potential to accommodate development – given an appropriate landscape framework. Viability : At Code level 3 or 4, development is viable, including delivery of policy compliant levels of affordable homes. Education : DCC proposing extension to Hadfield Infants to increase capacity to 210. S106 may be required to increase capacity further. Site includes a notified school site for which a requirement remains. Highways : A satisfactory access can be achieved. Development of the site would not cause an adverse impact on surrounding highway network. Topography does not present a highway problem, either within the highway or within the site. A TA would be required. Need to improve pedestrian facilities on Padfield Main Road.

Question Q4. G11, Land off Woodhead Road

Number 95 representations In support: 4 received Objections: 88 Other: 3 Stakeholder PDNPA : Strategic concern raised in relation to setting of comments National Park

6. 28 Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : All the allocation units within this area will require additional ecological assessment of the habitats. Note drainage, particularly surface water disposal, is an issue in this area. DCC : Footpath HP12/5 runs adjacent to the site and should be protected. Summary • Infrastructure cannot cope with extra traffic. points raised • Site includes foraging area for bats and other wildlife by public concerns. • Impact on Conservation Area. Evidence Base Highways : A satisfactory access can be achieved to serve the site. Development of the site risks causing an adverse impact on surrounding highway network - Thorpe Street is narrow with no pedestrian facilities or turning facility. Topography does not present a highway problem within the highway, but it does within the site. No TA would be required. Part of Thorpe Street is one way and emerging visibility is adequate. Viability: The site sits within the testing typologies for the wider Woodhead Road sites (G8-G10), at Code level 3 or 4, development is viable, including delivery of policy compliant levels of affordable homes. Education: The Duke of Norfolk school was brought onto a single site recently. There is some capacity for expansion but by no more than two classrooms with an appropriate S106 education contribution, but other facilities like car parking would be a significant problem. Landscape Impact : Site not consulted on as an original preferred option - so not specifically considered by study, however is in an area of landscape sensitivity requiring any development to address landscape impacts through an appropriate landscape framework.

Question Q5. G12, Bute Street

Number 92 representations In support: 5 received Objections: 86 Other:1 Stakeholder PDNPA : Strategic concern raised: site is a green wedge comments out into the countryside of the National Park and is likely to be prominent when seen from certain vantage points within the National Park Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : Will need comprehensive bat survey. The Landscape Impact Assessment January 2014 identified landscape constraints on the site and it should be recognised that the landscape assessment can be integrally linked to the ecological landscape and the establishment of a coherent ecological network for the

6. 29 borough. Natural England : mitigation measures should be considered to avoid significant adverse effects on the landscape and the setting of the National Park. DCC : site forms an important green wedge and is prominent from the Peak Park. Summary • Green Gateway into Glossop. points raised • Traffic and congestion. by public • Flood risk. • Impact on Conservation Area and National Park. Evidence Base Highways : A satisfactory access can be achieved to serve the site. Development of the site risks causing an adverse impact on surrounding highway network - Thorpe Street is narrow with no pedestrian facilities or turning facility. Topography does not present a highway problem within the highway but it does within the site. No TA would be required. Public highway fronting appears only to serve rear of hospital. Education : The Duke of Norfolk school was brought onto a single site recently. There is some capacity for expansion but by no more than two classrooms with an appropriate S106 education contribution, but other facilities like car parking would be a significant problem. Viability: The site sits within the testing typologies for the wider Woodhead Road sites (G8-G10), at Code level 3 or 4, development is viable, including delivery of policy compliant levels of affordable homes. Further viability work is required once DCC's requirements in relation to highways improvements on adjacent roads are known, to ensure any cost impacts are accounted for. Landscape Impact : Site not consulted on as an original preferred option - so not specifically considered by study, however is in an area of landscape sensitivity requiring any development to address landscape impacts through an appropriate landscape framework.

Question Q6. G17, Land off Cliffe Road

Number 34 representations In support: 2 received Objections: 30 Other: 2 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : DWT’s alert map shows that a comments small area of the site (<0.5ha) has been identified as semi- improved grassland. This area is on the very steep slope to the north-west of the site and it is unlikely this area will be developable. DWT would welcome a reduction in the allocation area to exclude the area of biodiversity interest. Natural England : seeks reassurance that there would be

6. 30 no adverse impacts on the ancient woodland and other UK BAP priority habitat from increases in recreational use. DCC : it would be difficult to accommodate the additional pupils arising from the total growth proposed within the normal area of St James’ Primary School. DCC : site is potentially visible at distance from across Glossop near Shire Hill so it is considered preferable to restrict development to the northern (upper slopes) of the site to reduce any visual intrusion. Summary • Key green field site visible from the town centre. points raised • Landscape impact. by public • Steep slope and poor access.

Question Q7. G18 Bank Street, Glossop

Number 25 representations In support: 5 received Objections: 17 Other: 3 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : - This allocation should be comments seen as part of the G17 & G16 complex. Suggested a development brief should be used to identify the environmental opportunities and constraints of these 3 areas together, including managing the contribution of Glossop Brook to the ecological network. DCC : Site abuts G17 but is much less conspicuous in wider views. Public footpath (HP12/24) runs through the site. As this site has been identified, it should be allocated in the Local Plan with an accompanying site allocation policy that specifies that this footpath must be safeguarded and should require the developer to incorporate improvements to the section of footpath between Cross Cliffe and Bank Street to bridleway standard as part of the design of any future development at this site. DCC : it would be difficult to accommodate the additional pupils arising from the total growth proposed within the normal area of St James’ Primary School. Summary • Loss of green space and biodiversity. points raised by public

Question Q8. G21, Land off Dinting Road , Dinting

Number 22 representations In support: 7 received Objections: 14 Other: 1

6. 31 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : DWT have not assessed this comments site and hold no information on the alert map. DCC : A proposed bridleway (HP12/124) runs along the eastern boundary of this site and should be protected. DCC : concerns that development alongside the other allocations could lead to the visual connection of Dinting and Glossop. DCC : it would be difficult to accommodate the additional pupils arising from the total growth proposed within the normal area of St Luke’s Primary School. Summary • Impact on strategic gap between Hadfield and Glossop. points raised • Traffic. by public • Change in character of area.

Question Q9: Waterside Employment Land , Hadfield

Number 12 representations In support: 12 received Objections: 3 Other: 3 Stakeholder Environmental Health : Site is a former landfill and gas comments testing will be required prior to development. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : no comment Summary • Job opportunities should be protected. points raised by public

Question Q10: Local Green Space – Padfield

Number 34 representations In support: 31 received Objections: 2 Other: 1 Stakeholder Site is in 3 ownerships including HPBC. Remaining 2 comments owners strongly oppose the designation. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : Support Summary • Gives village identity and character. points raised • Important to safeguard green spaces. by public

Question Q11. Green Belt addition at North Road

Number 28 representations In support: 25 received Objections: 2

6. 32 Other: 1 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : support as it provides comments additional protection to the Local Wildlife Site and recognition to the ecological network and landscape corridor on the north side of Glossop providing connectivity to the valuable habitats of the Peak District National Park. DCC : would assist in protecting the setting to Howard Park, which is a Conservation Area. Summary • Protect landscape from harm. points raised • Green area highly visible from surroundings and by public contributes to rural character of Glossop. • Acts as buffer between Hadfield and Glossop. • Other areas should be considered for inclusion in Green Belt.

Question Q12. Green Belt addition at Old Glossop

Number 26 representations In support: 21 received Objections: 3 Other: 2 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : the change to this addition comments appears to be logical. Summary • Provide future protection from development pressures. points raised • Help protect Old Glossop. by public • Other areas should be considered for inclusion in Green Belt.

Central

Question Q13. South of Macclesfield Road, Whaley Bridge

Number 682 representations In support: 4 received Objections: 673 Other: 5 Plus two petitions: 527 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : 2009 desk based assessment comments identified site as low impact - but value might be higher as BAP habitats may be present. It is known that there are veteran trees on site, nearby bat roosts, badger sets and slow worm records. Site is part of wider ecological network providing linkages to adjacent habitats and PDNP. Natural England : seeks reassurance that there will be no adverse impact on the Toddbrook Resevoir SSSI from recreational impacts. DCC : site would need to incorporate the Goyt Way /

6. 33 Midshires Way, which runs through it. The site is visually contained by existing trees and these will be a significant constraint if the site is developed. Summary • Traffic and congestion points raised • Impact on wildlife by public • Impact on tourism and character of the area • Impact on services and infrastructure • Lack of demand for housing • Impact on Mid shires way • Landscape impact Evidence Base Landscape Impact Assessment : area identified as having potential to accommodate development – given an appropriate landscape framework. Viability : Site falls within typology for a greenfield Central area site which shows viability at Code levels 3 and 4 and for policy compliant levels of affordable homes. Highways : A satisfactory access cannot be achieved to serve the site as drawn, site frontage is limited on to Linglongs Road where safe minimum visibility splays do not appear to be achievable. A satisfactory access could be achieved subject to control of sufficient third party land to secure adequate emerging visibility splays. Development of the site risks causing an adverse impact on surrounding highway network with probable negative impact at the junction of Linglongs Road with Macclesfield Road. Topography does not present a highway problem within the highway, but it does within the site. A TA would be required. A public right of way crosses the site which would need to be incorporated/diverted/upgraded. Education : This proposed allocation is for 83 dwellings, which would yield 17 primary school pupils. Housing development on this scale can be supported with an appropriate education contribution. Flood Risk : The Environment Agency confirms that the site is within flood zone 1 (low risk) and therefore in principle supports the option.

Question Q14. Rear of Laneside Road, New Mills

Number 145 representations In support: 3 received Objections:140 Other: 2 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : Site is directly upstream from comments proposed green wedges and strongly advise that narrowing of this area by development would restrict green corridor. Noted Landscape Impact Study indicates

6. 34 landscape constraints. DCC : Public footpaths HP19/139 and 169 run close to the southern and eastern boundaries of the site. The Local Plan site allocation policy should include a requirement to incorporate links onto these routes as part of the on-site design of any future development. Summary • Traffic and congestion. points raised • Access unsuitable will need third party land for access. by public • Impact on wildlife. • Flooding stream crosses the site. • Green field site loss of farming land. • Landscape impact. • Mining issues possible mine shafts. Evidence Base Landscape Impact : Site not consulted on as an original preferred option - so not specifically considered by study, however is in an area of landscape sensitivity requiring any development to address landscape impacts through an appropriate landscape framework. Viability : Site fits within testing typologies for C5 and C6. Development would generally be viable at Code level 3 although viability becomes an issue at 30% affordable provision, with either marginal or unviable results. At 20% affordable provision - all of the results are viable, except social rent including a CIL payment, where the result is marginal. At Code Level 4 the results, including 20% affordable provision, also become marginal, except with no CIL payment and on the assumption of affordable rent tenure. Highways : Third party land required to provide satisfactory access, there are associated issues with land ownership and securing third party agreement. Education : This site is within the normal areas of St George’s CE Voluntary Aided Primary School and New Mills School Business and Enterprise College. Overall growth proposed within the normal area of the Primary School could be accommodated through expansion of the existing school, subject to financial contributions via Section 106 planning obligations. The normal area secondary school would have sufficient capacity to accommodate growth proposed in this area.

Question Q15. Land at Shire Croft, Whaley Bridge

Number 23 representations In support: 12 received Objections:8 Other: 3 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : Site close to Todbrook

6. 35 comments Reservoir SSSI, need to assess flooding impact and make provision for local toad population. Natural England : would like reassurance that there will be no adverse impacts on the Toddbrook SSSI and CPA pond LNR. DCC : The proposed growth could be accommodated through expansion of the existing schools, subject to financial contributions via Section 106 planning obligations. Summary • No developer interest. points raised • Next to Brookfield Nature Reserve and reservoir and by public not suitable for development. • Greenfield site. • Will increase crime. • Should be used for local housing and be in keeping with the area.

Question Q16. Green Belt Amendment, Furness Vale

Number 28 representations In support: 11 received Objections:17 Other: 0 Stakeholder Natural England : seeks reassurance that there would be comments no adverse impact on the Goytside Meadows LNR through an increase in air emissions and increased recreational use. DCC : Furness Vale is immediately adjacent to the Peak Forest Canal Greenway, Footpath HP23/2 and the claimed public footpath along Calico Lane between Station Road and the canal towpath. The Local Plan site allocation policy for this site should require connections to these routes as part of the on-site design of any future development. DCC : The proposed growth could be accommodated through expansion of the existing schools, subject to financial contributions via Section 106 planning obligations. Summary • Other sites more suitable. points raised • No clear reasons to remove site from Green Belt. by public • Increase traffic on A6. • Furness Vale is a village should stay small. • Green field site. • Distant from town centre. • Good site for development.

Question Q17. C17, Pingot Road, New Mills

Number 22 representations In support: 4

6. 36 received Objections:17 Other:1 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : no known information on their comments alert map. Will need wildlife surveys. Summary • Is a children’s play area. points raised • Flooding. by public • Were slag heaps on the site. • Mining subsidence. • Landscape impact. • Greenfield site. • Will create a rat run. • Will increase traffic.

Question Q18. Field joining C5 & C6 New Mills

Number 23 representations In support: 3 received Objections:17 Other: 3 Stakeholder Peak District National Park : Agree that C5, C6 and comments extension would probably not have a strategic impact on the valley bottom nature of development or on the National Park provided it does not extend above the 200m contour level. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : no known information on their alert map. Will need wildlife surveys. Natural England : The landscape effects of these allocations should be examined further. DCC : The proposed growth could be accommodated through expansion of the existing schools, subject to financial contributions via Section 106 planning obligations. Summary • Overdevelopment. points raised • Visual impact. by public • Ground quality issues: were slag heaps, mining on site • Flooding. • No developer interest, would be a ransom strip making development uncertain.

Question Q19. Land at Newtown, New Mills

Number 24 representations In support: 17 received Objections: 4 Other: 3 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : There is a need to incorporate comments suitable buffer/protection and wildlife enhancement of the canal when proposals come forward.

6. 37 Natural England : seek reassurance there would no adverse impact on the Goytside Meadows LNR through an increase in air emissions and recreational use. DCC : it would be difficult to accommodate the additional pupils arising from the total growth proposed within Newtown Primary school’s normal area. Summary • Should be tourist based development; make use of the points raised canal. by public • Need to keep employment land. • Support for increased parking at the station. • Should use brownfield sites before Greenfield.

Question Q 20. Birch Vale Primary Employment Zone

Number 26 representations In support: 12 received Objections:8 Other:6 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : There is a need to incorporate comments suitable buffer/protection and wildlife enhancement of adjacent land. Natural England : seeks confirmation that there would be no adverse impact on the Bluebell Wood LNR through an increase in air emissions. DCC : it would be difficult to accommodate the additional pupils arising from the total growth proposed within Thornsett Primary school’s normal area. Summary • Need more detail of the impact on neighbouring points raised properties. by public • Used by fishing club, tourism potential. • Concern about more housing close to Arden quarry. • Employment land should be retained. • Housing would improve brownfield site. • Should be affordable housing.

Question Q21. C2, New Mills Road, Hayfield

Number 39 representations In support: 16 received Objections:14 Other: 9 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : This site is adjacent to the Sett comments Valley Trail Local Wildlife Site which is part of the wider ecological network; development needs to be carefully designed is to protect this. Impact on SAC/SPA should be considered in HRA. Natural England : agrees with proposal.

6. 38 DCC : As this site has been identified, it should be allocated in the Local Plan with an accompanying site allocation policy which includes a requirement for a buffer zone as part of the on-site design of any future development between the site and the Sett Valley Trail. Public bridleway HP15/81, which is part of the Pennine Bridleway National Trail and the Sett Valley Trail, runs along the northern boundary of the site. The Local Plan site allocation policy should include a requirement for the on-site design of any future development to incorporate a Greenway link from the site to the Sett Valley Trail from New Mills Road, if the nearby track cannot be used. Summary • Fringe development extending boundary of Hayfield. points raised • Should be kept for husbandry. by public • Concerns about housing close to Arden quarry. • Green field site. • No developer interest. • Other more suitable sites brownfield. • Site not suitable for development. • Access unsafe. • Hayfield cannot accommodate more housing. • Should be affordable housing.

Question Q22 Green Belt deletion at Kinder Road, Hayfield

Number 313 representations In support: 3 received Objections:308 Other:2 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : Impact on SAC/SPA should be comments considered in HRA. No information on this site. Summary • Would harm the character of the village. points raised • Is a tourist area. by public • Green belt boundary is strong and relevant to the surrounding area. • Landscape and visual impact: historically significant landscape in which Twenty Trees and surrounding area are central. • Should develop brownfield sites first. • Access along Kinder Road is poor narrow with parked cars. • Set a precedent for other green belt areas. • Flash flooding. • Impact on services and infrastructure. • Site fulfils green belt purposes.

Question Q23. Green belt addition at Whaley Bridge

6. 39

Number 30 representations In support: 19 received Objections:11 Other:0 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife trust : Support inclusion in the green comments belt. Natural England : agrees with proposal. Summary • Impact on infrastructure and services. points raised • Green belt is being proposed in a well developed area by public and green sites are being taken out of green belt. • Site is developed and doesn’t meet the exceptional circumstances for green belt designation in NPPF. • Has potential to accommodate some development.

Question Q24. C1, Hayfield bus depot

Number 23 representations In support: 17 received Objections: 4 Other:2 Stakeholder Peak District National Park: Agree, provided that the loss comments of this site outside the National Park creates no greater presumption for new housing in that part of the village inside the National Park. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : No wildlife issues, welcome retention of existing facilities. DCC : The proposal to remove this site as an allocation from the Local Plan is supported because it is used by DCC to provide essential countryside services. Summary • Site and facilities are important for the village and points raised tourism. by public • Hayfield needs affordable homes. • Site could accommodate some residential development and retain current facilities.

Question Q25. C8, Wharf Road, Whaley Bridge

Number 25 representations In support: 7 received Objections:15 Other: 3 Stakeholder DCC : Public Footpaths HP23/35 and 105 cross the site. comments Summary • Site should be developed: brownfield site in town points raised centre. by public • Would be a suitable site for low cost/ sheltered housing.

6. 40 • Development would improve the area. • Access could be improved. • Site not suitable for development: poor access.

Question Q26. Opposite Tescos, Whaley Bridge

Number 17 representations In support: 13 received Objections: 4 Other: 0 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : The woodland forms a small comments part of the ecological network along with the Peak Forest Canal/River Goyt and Goyt Mill Wood Local Wildlife Site and Ancient Woodland. Summary • Site is unsuitable for development. points raised • Access difficulties. by public • Mature trees on site make nice entrance to the village. • Suitable for small development, easy access to main road and close to town centre. • Would increase traffic congestion.

Question Q27. Old Road / Buxton Road, Whaley Bridge

Number 22 representations In support: 15 received Objections: 7 Other: 0 Stakeholder comments Summary • Site unsuitable for development. points raised • Unsuitable access. by public • Traffic congestion. • Impact on linear park. • Smaller sites like this preferable to C9 Macclesfield Road.

Buxton

Question Q28. B6, Hardwick Square South allocated for extra care

Number 19 representations In support: 12 received Objections: 5 Other: 2 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : No information on this site, comments would need bat survey.

6. 41 DCC : This proposed site has an adopted pathway which enters the north western corner of the site from Hardwick Square South, and a second runs partly along the southern boundary from Market Street. The site allocation policy should require protection of and connections to these routes as part of the on-site design of any future development at this site. Summary • Good site for sheltered housing. points raised • Existing employment use should be maintained. by public • General allocation suitable.

Question Q29: Green Wedge or Green Wedges

Number 17 representations Option 1: 4 received Option 2: 12 Other: 1 Stakeholder Buxton Civic Association : O2: Designate two green comments wedges. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : O1: Support the continuity of the semi-natural habitat structure along the brook. This site is an important part of the ecological network linking the drainage of the Leek Moors SAC to the SSSI and SAC of the River Wye and the Peak District Dales. DCC : it would be preferable to designate a single green wedge. Summary • The old YHA site is already compromised and should points raised be developed for housing. by public • This important green wedge should be maintained.

Question Q30: Tongue Lane employment land allocation

Number 16 representations In support: 12 received Objections: 2 Other: 2 Stakeholder Buxton Civic Association : Agree comments Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : Support: High specification is needed for surface water drainage. All water disposal should be away from the SAC and will require an assessment under the Habitats Regulations irrespective of any conclusions regarding phosphate loading in the Buxton area. Natural England : welcome that the southern part of the allocation of this site is to be removed. Summary • Employment land should be retained where possible. points raised • Lessens the impact on the countryside east of Buxton

6. 42 by public and the SAC.

Question Q31. Hoffman Quarry

Number 15 representations In support: 7 received Objections:5 Other: 3 Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : Welcome removal of site. comments DCC : the omission of Hoffman Quarry as employment land is supported given the visual prominence of this site. Summary • Should keep employment land. points raised • Should be used for mixed development it is a by public brownfield site.

Question Q32. Foxlow Farm employment allocation

Number 20 representations In support: 10 received Objections:8 Other:2 Stakeholder comments Summary • Landscape impact. points raised • Contrary to NPPF, creating new local centre in a by public remote greenfield site, doesn’t support Buxton town or Harpur Hill. • Need jobs for houses proposed on adjacent sites. • Loss of farmland. • Concern about loss of B1 element.

Question Q33. Station Road and Spring Gardens

Number 30 representations In support: 12 received Objections: 7 Other: 11 Stakeholder Nestle Waters & CPG : Disagrees with findings of Retail comments study and proposes that the Nestle site is most sequentially preferable and should be allocated. Summary • South side maximise parking potential. North of Station points raised Road agree housing for older people. by public • Land to the north of Station Road should be exclusively earmarked for housing. • Site could be an excellent mixed residential area, including student housing, budget hotel, sheltered

6. 43 housing and social housing with space for allotments and minimal parking. • Site represents opportunity to include re-provision of centralised Health Facilities.

Question Q34. Options for school site

Number 41 representations Option 1: site previously identified: 40 received Option 2: land to east of previous site: 1 Stakeholder Buxton Civic Association : Option 1 comments Harpur Hill Residents Association : Option 2 Green Holm Community Group : Option 1 Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : Need to consider impact on SSSI. Both Options support informal public access and provision needs to be incorporated into either scheme to compensate for this loss. DCC : Public footpaths HP4/61 and 58 abut the north western and eastern site boundaries. Both of these footpaths could be improved and used to access land from the school on the northern side of Green Lane, Poole’s Cavern and the network of paths through Grinlow Country Park. There is potential to provide a bridleway link from Temple Fields to a suitable point on Green Lane for riders to use the quiet estate roads to access Greenways, including the White Peak Loop. Option 2 is DCC’s preferred option - land to the east of the Preferred Option site within its ownership. Summary • Needs to be green space between housing on Green points raised Lane and Grinlow Wood. by public • The land at Option 1 is more appropriate and ideally situated for dual use as public amenity and playing fields.

Question Q35. Land at Batham Gate

Number 13 representations In support: 6 received Objections: 6 Other: 1 Stakeholder Buxton Civic Association : disagree comments DCC : removal is supported. Summary • Site is not in a sustainable location and is remote from points raised all the facilities in Buxton. by public • Small infill site would be suitable for housing.

6. 44 Question Q36. B5: Ambulance Station

Number 13 representations In support: 4 received Objections: 8 Other: 1 Stakeholder Buxton Civic Association : Essential to retain the comments Ambulance Station in the town. Harpur Hill Residents Association : If the Ambulance Service intend staying there: remove B5; if not - then allocate as brownfield housing site. DCC : The proposal to remove this site as an allocation is supported as it would reduce pressure on existing infrastructure. Summary • Ideal site for a small development of houses – if there is points raised no ambulance use. by public

Question Q37. B11: Sherbrook Lodge

Number 15 representations In support: 8 received Objections: 5 Other: 2 Stakeholder Buxton Civic Association : Retain for housing. comments Harpur Hill Residents Association : Leave as Greenfield. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : Support removal of B1 from allocation and formation of green wedge. Summary • Only build on site of former YHA. points raised • Maintain a wedge whilst utilising the land best suited for by public development.

Question Q38. Leek Rd / Macclesfield Rd

Number 16 representations In support: 4 received Objections: 2 Other: 10 Stakeholder Buxton Civic Association : Retain for housing. comments DCC : Burbage Primary School is unable to expand; the cost of building further on the school site is prohibitive because of the difficult access and topography. Summary • This area needs sorting out, it should not be left as an points raised eyesore. by public • Suitable for a small number of homes.

6. 45 Question Q39. Frontage to Cavendish Golf Club, Manchester Rd

Number 16 representations In support: 10 received Objections: 4 Other: 2 Stakeholder Buxton Civic Association : Remove from Plan. comments Harpur Hill Residents Association : Where were the site mentioned in the September 2012 plan? Cavendish Golf Club : Disagree: development would have limited landscape and visual impacts. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : Support. DCC : Burbage Primary School is unable to expand; the cost of building further on the school site is prohibitive because of the difficult access and topography. DCC : removal is supported. Summary • The site links well with existing development and has points raised good access to a main road. by public • A poor site in respect of main road access on a very busy road. • The site currently allows a pleasant view upon entering Buxton which would be lost.

6. 46 Policy Changes

Question Q40. Creating new policy EQ10 : Flood Risk management

Number 19 representations In support: 17 received Objections: 0 Other: 2 Stakeholder Environment Agency : Agree, and small addition to the comments pollution policy suggested. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : The splitting of the policy into two will make High Peak’s approach clearer. Summary • Yes - they both merit focused attention. points raised by public

Question Q41. Policy CF4 renamed and details required for developer contribution calculations removed to an SPD Number 14 representations In support: 11 received Objections: 0 Other: 3 Stakeholder Harpur Hill Residents Association : Not sure of comments implications. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: wish to be consulted on SPD Summary • Not clear as to how the developer contribution will be points raised calculated and apportioned. by public

Question Q42. Policy CF6 – reference to new parking standards

Number 15 representations In support: 7 received Objections: 3 Other: 5 Stakeholder Harpur Hill Residents Association : Not clear of comments implications. Summary • Agree with the parking figures except for those relating points raised to residential development - the parking allocation will by public not be enough. • Disagree with standard D1-2a (creches and day nurseries); D1-3a (infant, primary, and secondary schools): D2-1 (cinemas and conference facilities); D2- 5-viii (Driving ranges); and Non-Scheduled Uses 1 (Theatres). • More flexible approach needed. • Recommendations made in relation to cycling and

6. 47 mobility scooter parking standards.

Question Q43. Policy CF1 : Retail and town centres

Number 22 representations In support: 11 received Objections: 7 Other: 4 Stakeholder Whaley Bridge Town Council : Disagree with proposals comments relating to Whaley Bridge: It makes little sense to remove the one area which has easy access to a public car park. Harpur Hill Residents Association : Should the removal of the retail area from Foxlow go ahead, then this action will cause even more job opportunities to be lost in favour of housing. Summary • A retail store in New Mills East would have the potential points raised to badly affect the town centre. by public • Opposition to town centre boundary change in Whaley Bridge as it almost halves the town centre area. • Agreement with removing support for a food store in Glossop and Buxton. • Support for provision of new food store for New Mills - as part of a wider retail strategy for the town.

Question Q44. Policy S2 to re-classify Hadfield as a larger village

Number 9 representations In support: 3 received Objections: 2 Other: 4 Stakeholder Peak District National Park Authority : Uncertain. The comments extremely close proximity of the village to the Park boundary means that significant parts of Hadfield could not grow ‘National Parkwards', so it is unclear whether the re- designation as a larger village/other local centre is justified in terms of deliverability of development that such a place might be expected to absorb. Loxley Developments : Hadfield's centre should be classified as a small town centre. Summary • Hadfield is neither a small town nor a larger village. points raised by public

6. 48 Appendix 3 – Schedule of Proposed Housing Allocations

Glossopdale

Location No of dwellings Phase Paradise Street Hadfield (G2) 28 M Roughfields Hadfield (G3) 102 M North Road (G6) 150 E Land off Woodhead Rd (G8, G9, G10, G11) 121 E Bute Street ( G12) 30 M Hawkshead Mill Old Glossop (G13) 31 E Woods Mill High St East (G16) 104 M Dinting Road/Dinting Lane (G19) 64 E Dinting Lane (G20) 50 M Former railway museum (G23) 89 L Land off Melandra Castle Road (G25) 35 M Land adj to Gamesley Sidings (G26) 38 M Charlestown Works Glossop (G31) 100 E Adderley Place (G32) 130 M TOTAL PROVISION ON ALLOCATED SITES 1072

Central

Location No of dwellings Phase Derby Road New Mills (C3) 107 M Ollersett Lane/Pingot Road/Laneside Road New 239 M/L Mills (C5, C6 ,C17,C18) Woodside Street New Mills (C7) 25 E South of Macclesfield Road (C9) 83 E Buxton Road Chinley (C13) 13 E Britannia Mill* (C15) 50 E Furness Vale A6 (C16) 39 E Furness vale Business Park* (C19) 26 L New Mills, Newtown* (C20) 15 M Birch Vale Industrial Estate* (C21) 100 M TOTAL PROVISION ON ALLOCATED SITES 697

Sites marked * are industrial legacy sites identified in policy E5 for redevelopment including housing

Buxton

Location No of dwellings Phase Batham Gate Road Peak Dale (B1) 25 E Land at Hogshaw, Buxton ( B3, B4) 124 L Hardwick Square South, Buxton (B6) 30 E Market Street Depot, Buxton (B7) 24 E West of Tongue Lane Fairfield, Buxton (B8) 215 L Land off Dukes Drive Buxton (B10) 338 M Foxlow Farm, Ashbourne Road, Buxton ( B20, B21, 440 E/M B22)

6.49 Location No of dwellings Phase Harpur Hill College campus (B27) 105 E Station Road, Buxton (B31) 30 M TOTAL PROVISION ON ALLOCATED SITES 1331

6.50

APPENDIX 4

Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 22-24 May 2012 Site visit made on 1 June 2012 by Susan Holland MA DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 23 August 2012

Appeal Ref: APP/H1033/A/11/2159038 Land at Manchester Road/Crossings Road, Chapel-en-le-Frith, High Peak, Derbyshire SK23 9TP • 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 Barratt Homes against the decision of High Peak Borough Council. • The application Ref HPK/2011/0282, dated 26 May 2011, was refused by notice dated 25 August 2011. • The development proposed is residential development.

Procedural Matters

1. The application is in outline, but includes access and also landscaping specifically of the perimeter area of the site. All other matters, including landscaping within the main body of the site, are reserved for future determination. The submitted site layout is illustrative only, indicating a form of development of 105 dwellings.

2. After the date of the Council’s decision, but several months before the Inquiry, a Design and Access Statement (DAS) Addendum, including a number of revised plans, was submitted as an appeal document. The DAS Addendum plans include an amended indicative site layout and a revised perimeter landscaping scheme. An updated flood risk assessment addressing Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS) issues is included in the DAS Addendum. Well in advance of the Inquiry, the Appellant carried out consultation on the revised plans and documents: with statutory consultees, with residents (in this case by leaflet) who commented on the planning application, via a website, and by making hard copies available for public view at various public locations. Though some objectors criticise the level of consultation, I consider that sufficient has been done to avoid the possibility of any prejudice to statutory bodies or to members of the public. This decision is therefore based upon the plans as amended. A comprehensive combined list of application plans including those which have been amended (as also contained in Document 2) is set out at Annex B to this decision.

Decision

3. I allow the appeal, and grant planning permission for residential development on land at Manchester Road/crossings Road, Chapel-en-le-Frith, High Peak, Derbyshire SK23 9TP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref HPK/2011/0282, dated 26 May 2011, subject to the conditions set out in Annex A to this decision.

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/11/2159038

Main Issues

4. The main issues are the effects of the proposed development (a) upon the housing supply and (b) upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Reasons

Background

5. The appeal site is formed from 2 open fields, bounded by hedges on all sides, aligned from north to south, and measuring about 3.6 hectares. To the west and north-west the appeal site adjoins open grazing land rising to Eccles Pike. To the south-west and north-east, residential properties lie immediately beyond the site: these extend along the B5470 Manchester Road and along Crossings Road, to which the site has a partial frontage at its north-eastern end. The principal access to the proposed development would be taken from Manchester Road, using vacant ground between the Police Station and the existing house at No.88a. The built-up area of Chapel-en-le-Frith is concentrated to the east and south of the site, with a ribbon of frontage development extending westwards along the Manchester Road.

Issue (a): Housing Supply

Local Plan Policy H1

6. The High Peak Borough Local Plan (LP) was adopted in March 2005. Housing policy of the Local Plan is based upon the then government guidance of PPG3 and upon the housing figures of the Derbyshire Structure Plan, and seeks only to identify sufficient land to meet the housing requirements set by the Structure Plan . There was at that time a significant risk of house-building exceeding the Structure Plan provision … in 2 out of 3 of the High Peak sub-areas (including the Central area in which Chapel-en-le-Frith is located) (LP ¶7.12). LP Policy H1 [gives] priority to the redevelopment of previously developed land in built up areas [and to] conversions and subdivision of existing urban buildings . Accordingly, H1 states that residential development on greenfield land (including renewals) will not be permitted (subject to specific exceptions which do not include the appeal proposal) and states also that where an adequate supply of housing exists within a sub-area to meet the Structure Plan housing provision, new residential development will only be permitted where it falls within one of the exceptional categories listed … above .

7. LP Policy H1 was saved by Secretary of State Direction in 2007. By this time government guidance on housing was contained in PPS3. Though agreeing to extend the saving of Policy H1, the Secretary of State in a letter dated 26 March 2008 to High Peak Borough Council expressed concern that the approach to managing the supply of housing in Policy H1 is not consistent with the approach to managing and delivering a supply of land for housing as set out in PPS3 , and urged the Council to prioritise the preparation of the Core Strategy DPD. It has to be assumed that the level of restraint imposed by Policy H1 remained appropriate in the circumstances of housing land availability at that time.

8. The East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) was adopted in 2009. The RSS increased the housing requirement from 250 dwellings per annum (dpa) to 300 dpa, backdated to 2006. The Council’s Interim Housing Policy Statement of 2009 states that Policy H1 should now have regard to the RSS in place of the Structure Plan , pending adoption of the Core Strategy, then expected for 2011. http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 2 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/11/2159038

The Secretary of State has signalled the intention to revoke RSS but the position at the time of writing is that RSS has not yet been revoked, and a Core Strategy has not been adopted (its preparation having now been abandoned).

The 5-year Housing Land Supply

9. The Council’s Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) for 2010/2011 at p67 shows that housing delivery was below RSS target level in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. In relation to the RSS housing requirement, the Council had, at the time of its consideration of the application the subject of the current appeal, a housing land supply of 4.25 years as at 27 May 2011; 2.25 years as at 15 August 2011; and 2.4 years as at December 2011. Clearly, these figures fall far short of a 5-year supply. At the Inquiry the Council’s case was that it had a housing land supply of 5.9 years. However, this total includes sites without planning permission.

10. The most up-to-date planning policy document, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), was issued in March 2012. The Framework at ¶47 requires that local planning authorities should … identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the Plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land . Footnote 11 to ¶47 explains that to be considered deliverable, sites should be available now… and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within 5 years … . Footnote 11 states that sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within 5 years, for example they will not be viable…. The inclusion of the phrase until permission expires strongly implies that a site which no longer has – or, significantly, has not yet received – planning permission for housing is not to be considered deliverable in the terms of the Framework.

11. Of the sites listed by the Council as contributing to its estimated 5.9yr supply of housing land, among the largest and most significant are the Federal Mogul site in Chapel-en-le-Frith and the Dorma site at Chinley. Both are brownfield sites. Neither as yet has received planning permission for housing. The Dorma industrial site is vacant and its former mill buildings have been demolished, but extensive areas of concrete slab remain to be removed.

12. At the Federal Mogul site there is an Interim Planning Statement which proposes housing on part of a site for mixed use, and optimism is expressed by planning consultants for Federal Mogul that first housing completions could be as soon as late 2013 . However, the area proposed to be developed for housing is in current use for car parking and also includes an industrial building yet to be demolished; and moreover immediately adjoins a further industrial building which would remain and from which noticeable noise is currently emitted: a problem not yet confirmed as capable of satisfactory resolution. The concern expressed by the plant manager for Federal Mogul, that the prior development of the current appeal site might jeopardise the firm’s own plans to use the proceeds from housing development on its site to secure investment in production facilities, is not supported by evidence, given the extent of the Borough’s housing shortfall and the emphasis of the Framework on boost[ing] significantly the supply of housing .

13. Of the other sites, including some of those with planning permission, development of the Waterswallows site awaits delivery of a road, itself dependent upon the resolution of ownership problems. The Harpur Hill site has been marketed for

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 3 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/11/2159038

several years with no evident progress. The Hope Street site is subject to employment policies aimed at avoiding loss of employment land. The Bowers site is in active employment use and is crossed by a waterway with flood plain. Whilst complications in respect of any of the suggested sites might be capable of resolution so as to make them deliverable within 5 years in the terms of the Framework, it seems unlikely on the evidence that their problems could be resolved sufficiently and to the extent that collectively these suggested sites could amount to a 5-year-plus-5% supply of housing land deliverable in the terms of the Framework.

14. The Council’s estimate of a 5.9-year housing land supply does not therefore accord with the provisions of the Framework, and moreover includes a windfall estimate which does not follow the Framework stipulation that an allowance for windfall sites in the 5-year supply should not include residential gardens and is consequently over-generous. Furthermore, the evidence for 2008-2011 taken from the AMR suggests a situation of persistent under-delivery in the terms of the Framework at ¶47, which states that in such a case local planning authorities should increase the buffer [of 5%] to 20% (moved forward from later in the Plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land . In these circumstances the housing land supply falls significantly short of what, under the Framework, is now required.

Affordable Housing

15. The evidence of the Council’s AMR 2010-11 is that a total of 268 affordable homes have been delivered within the Borough (including Peak Park) in the past 7 years: during which time the annual need has varied between 443 and 591. The 2009 Chapel Housing Needs Survey identified 61 households in housing need in Chapel-en-le-Frith, and a further 87 households are registered as desiring affordable housing: 147 households in all. It has been several years since any new rented units were built. The Peaks and Plains Housing Trust, which supports the appeal proposal, doubts whether the delivery of sufficient affordable housing units could be achieved on the relevant brownfield sites, in the face of other costs – such as, on the ex-industrial sites, the remediation of contaminated land to enable residential use. In advance of specific proposals, accompanied by the necessary assessments and consultations, the levels of affordable housing that would be viable and deliverable on these ex-industrial sites have not yet been demonstrated.

16. The appeal scheme would make provision, via the submitted S106 agreement, for 30% of the total number of dwellings to be made available as affordable housing, in the proportion of 80% social rented housing, and 20% shared ownership. The affordable dwellings would include a variety of sizes: 25% would be 5-person, 3- bedroom houses; 37% would be 4-person, 2-bedroom houses; 19% 2-bedroom apartments and 19% 1-bedroom apartments. The mix is compatible with that identified by the 2009 Chapel Housing Needs Survey. In evidence to the Inquiry the shared ownership and rented elements of the appeal proposal were expressly welcomed by a young resident local mother, whose experience had been that the housing brought forward on brownfield sites was commonly too expensive for families to buy, and who also doubted, in common with the Housing Trust, that affordable homes could be brought forward on such sites.

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 4 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/11/2159038

The New Homes Bonus

17. The Appellant calculates that approval of the appeal proposals would result in around £900,000 of contributions to the local area through the Government’s New Homes Bonus scheme: a factor which under S143 of Part 6 of the Localism Act 2011 is, as a local finance consideration , a material consideration in this appeal.

Prematurity and the Neighbourhood Plan

18. The Framework itself contains no reference to prematurity. However, the Government document ‘The Planning System: General Principles’ 2005 (which was not cancelled on issue of the Framework and remains extant) contains guidance on prematurity. The guidance of ¶17 of the General Principles document is that it may be justifiable to refuse planning permission on grounds of prematurity where a DPD is being prepared or is under review, but it has not yet been adopted ; but that it may be appropriate [to do so] where a proposed development is so substantial, or the cumulative effect would be so significant, that granting permission could prejudice the DPD by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which are being addressed in the policy in the DPD .

19. Relevant factors therefore include the stage reached by any currently emerging development plan, and the size and relative scale and significance of the proposed development. The question of relative scale and significance is to be judged in the context of the individual planning authority, its housing requirement, strategy and local circumstances: so that the examples of other cases (including the Romsey appeal decision to which the Council refers) are not of such relevance here as to be decisive. At 105 dwellings, the proposal would represent one-third of the total annual housing requirement of the RSS – that is, for 1 single year - for the Borough of High Peak. However, given the undershooting of housing targets in the recent past, the proposal would represent a lesser proportion of the cumulative outstanding requirement. Though the Local Plan divides the Borough into 3 sub-areas for housing purposes, the requirement itself spans the Borough as a whole. Using the figures of the (now abandoned) draft Core Strategy for the plan period, the proposal would represent 1.6% of the district total, and 8% of the 1,250 dwellings for the Central area. In these terms the scale of the proposed development would not be so substantial as to prejudice the emerging local plan (of which no draft was yet available to be offered in evidence to the Inquiry).

20. Objectors suggest that the appeal proposal represents the thin end of the wedge , and that the Appellant has the intention to develop other, additional greenfield sites on the edge of Chapel-en-le-Frith. However, any such proposals would have to be judged on their merits against the development plan and housing land availability situation prevailing at the time of the planning application; and in that context would have to take into account, at the time, the guidance in ‘General Principles’ relating to cumulative effect .

21. The ‘General Principles’ document at ¶18 states that where a DPD is at the consultation stage, with no early prospect of submission for examination, then refusal on prematurity grounds would seldom be justified because of the delay which this would impose in determining the future use of the land in question . In the current case, where the draft Core Strategy has been abandoned and there is as yet no emerging draft local plan, no justification for refusal on prematurity grounds can be drawn from ‘General Principles’. It happens that Chapel-en-le- Frith represents a ‘Pathfinder’ with funding for the preparation of a neighbourhood

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 5 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/11/2159038

plan under the Localism Act 2011. The local community group ‘Chapel Vision’ is currently preparing a neighbourhood plan for Chapel-en-le-Frith, primarily (though not exclusively) on the basis of using brownfield sites, rather than greenfield sites beyond the existing urban edge as defined in the Local Plan, for housing. Chapel Vision opposes the appeal development. On the evidence it is clear that to grant planning permission for the appeal proposal would not accord with the current thinking behind the neighbourhood plan.

22. Nevertheless, the position is that a neighbourhood plan must have regard to national planning policy and must be in general conformity with strategic policies in the development plan for the local area. The Local Planning Authority remains responsible for preparing, in the light of the Framework, the new local plan which will govern the location of development. Any neighbourhood plan must be in general conformity with the new local plan, interpreting its policies on a neighbourhood basis.

23. In this case there is no Core Strategy, nor any up-to-date local planning policy, either adopted or in late-stage emerging draft form to which substantial weight could be given, setting either the requirement or the location strategy for housing within the Borough. It will be up to a new-style local plan to determine in the light of the Framework, as a matter of strategy and in the light of evidence concerning the housing requirement, to what extent and where it may be necessary to allocate greenfield land for housing development. Moreover, at the time of the Inquiry no draft neighbourhood plan was available in evidence. In the absence of an up-to-date higher-order development plan, very little weight can be given to the neighbourhood plan in the decision on the current appeal, disappointing as that may be for those members of the community whose efforts have been involved in its preparation to date.

Conclusion on Issue (a)

24. The level of restraint imposed by LP Policy H1 and its overwhelming emphasis upon brownfield sites are inconsistent with the provisions of the Framework. Though adopted in 2005, the Local Plan is not a ‘new-style’ development plan document (DPD) prepared in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. In these circumstances, LP Policy H1 is out of date, and very little weight can be given to it in the terms of ¶215 of the Framework. Such weight as can be attributed to Policy H1 derives only from its combination with the Interim Housing Policy Statement which adapts Policy H1 to the housing figures contained in RSS (itself only temporary pending revocation). In conclusion, the proposed development is necessary in order to satisfy the requirement of the Framework, in measures set out at ¶47 onwards, to boost significantly the supply of housing and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land , and to meet identified needs for affordable housing. In the light of prevailing planning policy and the balance of material considerations, the proposal would not therefore have a materially harmful effect upon the housing supply, and would be largely of benefit.

Issue (b): Character and Appearance

25. The appeal site occurs at the western end of the urban area, where built development gives way to open land. The 2 fields comprising the site are contained within the acute western angle formed by the junction of Crossings Road with Manchester Road. The southern field is bordered on 2 sides by frontage residential development. The northern field narrows towards the north, tapering along the line of a watercourse which forms its north-western boundary,

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 6 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/11/2159038

its short northern boundary adjoining the single dwelling ‘Nearwell’ which fronts Crossings Road. The overall shape of the appeal site represents a truncated triangle with a slight outward ‘bulge’ to the north-west. On the far side of Crossings Road and Manchester Road, the urban area of Chapel-en-le-Frith extends away to the south and east.

26. Together with the adjoining grassland to the west and north-west, the appeal site is included within the landscape character classification of ‘settled valley pastures’ as defined by the Derbyshire Landscape Character Assessment. The appeal site itself is no longer pastureland, having been ploughed some years ago for arable crops. As arable land, the site is not typical of the adjoining countryside, which features damp lowland pastures rising towards the north-west and culminating in the rocky outcrops of Eccles Pike. As a local landmark owned by the National Trust, Eccles Pike attracts many visitors via local lanes and footpaths. These, with increasing height, afford extensive views back towards Chapel-en-le-Frith, setting the town within a panoramic landscape. Much of the valley floor, the foothills rising from it, and the summit of Eccles Pike are collectively designated as a Special Landscape Area (SLA) in the High Peak Local Plan. The appeal site itself, though clearly once forming part of the valley-floor pastureland as revealed by damp-loving plants which persist within the headlands of the arable fields, is excluded from SLA designation.

27. Against this background and using conventional landscape methodology for the identification of visual receptors, their sensitivity to change and the magnitude of change to a view, the Parties disagree on the significance of the visual impacts consequent upon the appeal proposal. Nevertheless, whether the residential occupiers of existing ribbon developments on Crossings Road and Manchester Road are classified as receptors of moderate sensitivity or of high sensitivity on the basis of the existing views available to them and the consequent reduction in the scope of such views, it remains one of the General Principles of the Planning System , as set out at ¶29 of that document, that in relation to private interests the basic question is not whether owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties would experience … loss from a particular development but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities and the existing use of land … which ought to be protected in the public interest .

28. Those views most available to the general public are to be seen from the lane and footpaths on the approaches to Eccles Pike, and from the summit. From the public footpath which contours round the hillside below the Pike and below the level of the lane, the effect of perspective is to limit the surface area of the appeal site which is visible, and the screening effect of existing trees and hedges is substantial. From the summit, however, the site is more clearly visible, and in full. Initially, the site would look raw under development and would stand out starkly and intrusively against the neighbouring green and open valley floor, to the point of material harm to the countryside. With time, the proposed perimeter landscaping would soften the edges of the site, and the proposed central area of planting would separate and so reduce the extent of the bare rooftops visible from above. The enlargement of the built-up area would be obvious: but the new built boundary would nevertheless be held well within the compass of the existing outermost edges of the settlement, and would not project beyond them.

29. In the existing view the item which most draws the eye is the new school building which serves Chapel-en-le-Frith and the surrounding area. This is light-coloured, massive and wide-spread. It represents a prominent and striking visual element, unavoidable in the southward panorama seen from Eccles Pike. In contrast, the

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 7 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/11/2159038

appeal proposal would be of a lower profile, edged and subdivided by landscaping and, with care in the use of materials (especially roofing materials), could be made to mesh almost seamlessly with the grain and roofscape of the existing urban area.

30. The proposed development would eliminate the tract of open land which currently separates the settlement edge from the SLA, allowing no space to act as a transitional spatial element in advance of the area designated for landscape value. The elimination of the foreground to the SLA through the reduction in the area designated as open countryside would be materially harmful in terms of LP Policy OC1: but the Special Landscape Area itself would remain in its entirety and there would be no harm in terms of LP Policy OC3. The intervention of the new development would have little or no effect upon the overall setting of Eccles Pike, which would be sufficiently widespread to ensure that the Pike itself and its surrounding landscape structure would remain visually independent of the development and of the urban area.

Conclusion on Issue (b)

31. In conclusion, the appeal proposal would in various ways outlined above, and initially, have an effect upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area which would be materially harmful and in conflict with LP Policy OC1. However, some elements of that harm would be temporary, and moderated through the imposition of conditions. On balance, the appeal proposal would not be harmful to the character of the area to the point at which the appeal proposal ought to be refused on that account: the harm being outweighed by the benefits to the housing supply which are considered under Issue (a) above.

S106 Agreement

32. A copy of an executed, signed and dated S106 Agreement was submitted in advance of the Inquiry. The Agreement would secure 30% affordable housing on the appeal site, comprising 80% social rented housing, and 20% shared ownership housing on the site overall, and a specified overall mix of dwelling types and sizes. Under Schedule 1 of the Agreement, the order of priority to be given to tenants of the social rented housing and to purchasers of the shared ownership housing would be firstly those already resident in the Chapel-en-le- Frith area for a minimum of 5 years, followed by those with a local connection or family association within the Chapel-en-le-Frith area, and thirdly applicants with employment in that area.

33. The Agreement provides for contributions to off-site highways works (£26,500) to be carried out in the vicinity of the appeal site, and to off-site children’s play provision (£45,000) to be used in Chapel-en-le-Frith and the Central area of the Borough. The Agreement also provides for maintenance of the peripheral landscaping area and of the open space within the site, via maintenance schemes to be submitted to the Council and approved prior to the commencement of development.

34. The Agreement also provides for the phased payment to the Council of a Primary Care Facilities Contribution of £512.56 per dwelling (total £53,818.80) to assist with capacity issues at Thornbrook Surgery and at the Goyt Valley Medical Surgery, both in Chapel-en-le-Frith. The Appellant, though having provided a signed Agreement which incorporates the contribution, nevertheless questions its appropriateness in the absence of a Local Plan policy to require it. However, in this respect as in others (including housing supply), the old-style local plan may

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 8 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/11/2159038

also have become outdated. NHS Derbyshire has demonstrated firstly, that both surgeries, as at 1 April 2011, had patient lists significantly above the recommended list size, and that following the development the subject of this appeal the patient lists at both surgeries would increase appreciably; and, secondly, that Thornbrook Surgery currently has a significant shortfall in available space, leading to overcrowding.

35. It is clear that the appeal development would have a direct impact upon both surgeries: upon the need and demand for healthcare and upon the conditions under which healthcare is delivered. It is, of course, possible (as the Appellant suggests) that some future residents of the development would prefer to use a surgery elsewhere: perhaps nearer to a workplace. No evidence was available to the Inquiry to suggest a proportion of residents who might be expected to make that choice. In its absence, it is not unreasonable to assume that the majority of residents would elect to use one of the surgeries most local to Chapel.

36. The costs estimated by NHS Derbyshire are based upon the average cost of an average GP surgery with provision for dental and pharmacy services, and assume an average of 2.3 persons per household and an average of 1800 patients per full-time GP. NHS Derbyshire considers that the Contribution would be spent on extending existing premises to provide consulting rooms for any additional GPs required to deal with the increased number of patients (estimated at 241 persons overall), or to remodel existing premises to give more privacy and so make better use of existing space.

37. In these circumstances, the S106 contributions including the Primary Care Facilities Contribution meet the tests of the Framework at ¶204 (and of S122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010), that they should be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms ; directly related to the development ; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development .

Conditions

38. In addition to the standard conditions (Nos. 1-3) on time and the submission of details, it is necessary to impose further conditions. Conditions Nos. 4-9 are necessary in the interests of highway safety and convenience. Condition 10 is necessary in order to ensure satisfactory drainage. Conditions Nos. 11-16 are necessary to ensure satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity. Condition No.17 is necessary in the interests of nature conservation. Conditions Nos.18-20 imposed in order to achieve a satisfactory noise environment during the development of the site, and Conditions Nos.21-23 to ensure adequate remediation of land in the event of the discovery of contamination, are necessary in the interests of residential amenity. The conditions are set out in Annex A to this decision.

Overall Conclusion

39. On the basis of the main planning issues and all material considerations, the overall conclusion, on balance, is that this appeal should be allowed.

S Holland

INSPECTOR

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 9 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/11/2159038

ANNEX A: CONDITIONS

1) Details of the layout, scale, appearance, and landscaping (excluding the perimeter landscaping), (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. 2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. 3) The development hereby approved shall be begun either before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. 4) Before any other operations are commenced (excluding site clearance), space shall be provided within the site curtilage for the storage of plant and materials, site accommodation, loading and unloading of goods vehicles and the parking and manoeuvring of site operatives’ and visitors’ vehicles. The space to be provided shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with detailed designs which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and shall be retained throughout the contract period in accordance with the approved designs and free from any impediment to its designated use. 5) Before any other operations are commenced (including those to be carried out under Condition 6 below), the existing vehicular access to No.88a Manchester Road shall be modified in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 6) Before any other operations are commenced (with the exception of those to be carried out under Condition 5 above), a new estate street junction shall be formed to Manchester Road in accordance with Plan Ref.SCP/10294/F01 Revision C, laid out, constructed to base level and provided with 2.4m x 54m and 2.4m x 57m visibility splays to the east and west respectively, the area in advance of the sightlines being levelled, constructed as footway, and not to be included in any other plot or subdivision of the site. 7) Before any other operations are commenced (with the exception of those to be carried out under Conditions 5 and 6 above), a new vehicle access shall be formed to Crossings Road in accordance with application drawing SCP/10294/F02 and shall be located, designed, laid out, constructed and provided with 2.4m x 51m and 2.4m x 45m visibility splays to the north and south respectively. The area in advance of the sightlines shall be retained throughout the life of the development clear of any object greater than 1m in height (0.6m in the case of vegetation) relative to adjoining carriageway channel level. 8) No development shall commence until details of the footway on Crossings Road fronting the application site, to include its modification/widening, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The footway shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of any dwelling on the site.

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 10 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/11/2159038

9) No development shall commence until details of the new estate streets within the application site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include the layout and construction of the streets to the County Council’s current criteria for adoption, and the programme for their construction. The streets shall be constructed to adoptable standards in accordance with the approved details. 10) No development shall commence until a scheme to limit the surface water runoff generated by the development and to manage the risk of flooding from overland flow of surface water has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include the following: (a) the discharge of surface water from the development shall be restricted to a maximum of 10.9 litres per second per hectare; (b) in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment, surface water attenuation (including allowances for climate change) shall be provided in the form of swales and ponds. 11) All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the details of perimeter landscaping approved under this permission shall be carried out in the first planting/seeding season following the first occupation of the dwellings and no later than within 12 months of that first occupation or of the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within 5 years from the completion of the approved development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in he next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation. 12) No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of a buffer zone alongside the watercourse has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include the following: (a) plans showing the extent of the buffer zone; (b) details of planting; (c) a management plan demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during development and managed, maintained and protected in the long term. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. 13) No development shall commence until a detailed method statement for the removal or long-term management/eradication of Japanese Knotweed on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The method statement shall include (a) measures to prevent the spread of Japanese Knotweed during any operations such as mowing, strimming or soil movement; (b) measures to ensure that any soils brought to the site are free from the seeds/roots/stems of any invasive plant covered under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved method statement.

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 11 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/11/2159038

14) No development or other operations shall commence until a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement to include a scheme for the retention and protection of trees, shrubs and hedges growing on or adjacent to the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Arboricultural Method Statement and tree/shrub/hedge protection scheme shall include full details of the following: (a) timing and phasing of arboricultual works in relation to the approved development; (b) implementation, supervision and monitoring of the approved tree/shrub/hedge work specification; (c) implementation, supervision and monitoring of the approved tree/shrub/hedge protection scheme; (d) implementation, supervision and monitoring of any approved construction work within any area designated as being fenced off or otherwise protected in the approved tree/shrub/hedge protection scheme. No development or other operations shall take place otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved Method Statement and protection scheme. 15) Both before and after submission/approval of the Arboricultural Method Statement and protection scheme to be submitted: (a) no trees and hedgerows within the site shall be felled, uprooted, wilfully damaged or destroyed, cut back in any way or removed without the prior written consent of the local planning authority to a detailed felling/removal/pruning specification; (b) any trees, shrubs or hedge plants removed without such consent, or which die or become severely damaged or diseased within 5 years from the completion of the development hereby approved shall be replaced with trees, shrubs or hedge plants of similar size and species unless the local planning authority has given written consent to any variation; (c) no operations shall commence on site (including soil moving, temporary access construction and/or widening or any operations involving the use of motorised vehicles or construction machinery) unless the protection works required by the submitted/approved protection scheme are in place; (d) no excavations for services, no storage of materials or machinery, no parking of vehicles, no deposit or excavation of soil or rubble, no lighting of fires and no disposal of liquids shall take place on the site otherwise than outside any area designated as being fenced off or otherwise protected in the submitted/approved protection scheme. 16) All protective fencing erected in accordance with Condition No.15 above shall be retained intact for the full duration of the construction of the development hereby approved and shall not be removed or repositioned without the prior written approval of the local planning authority. 17) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations contained in Section 7.2 of the Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Protected Species Assessment.

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 12 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/11/2159038

18) No construction work audible at residential property adjoining the site shall take place outside the following hours: (a) 0800hrs to 1800hrs on Mondays to Fridays; (b) 0800hrs to 1300hrs on Saturdays; (c) At any time on Sundays or Public Holidays. 19) Any equipment which needs to be operated on or adjacent to the site outside the hours specified in Condition No.17 above in connection with the development hereby approved shall before its first use be acoustically screened in accordance with a scheme which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and the approved acoustic screening shall be retained at all times when the equipment is in use. 20) No piling shall take place except in accordance with a written method statement which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 21) No development shall take place until an investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, has been completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The scheme shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced and submitted to the local planning authority. The report of the findings must include: (a) A survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; (b) An assessment of the potential risks to human health, property including crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, adjoining land, groundwater and surface water, and ecological systems; (c) An appraisal of remedial options and proposals of the preferred options. 22) In the event of any contamination being found to be present, a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural environment must be prepared, and submitted for approval in writing by the local planning authority. The remediation scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation. 23) The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The local planning authority must be given 2 weeks’ written notification of the commencement of the works to be carried out under the remediation scheme.

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 13 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/11/2159038

ANNEX B: LIST OF APPLICATION PLANS

BAR197/2-001 Location plan (John Rose Associates) BAR197/2-003 Existing site plan (John Rose Associates) 11-018-1000 Amended indicative site layout plan (MCK Architects) 11-018-1001 Streets and movement plan (MCK Architects) 11-018-1002 Colour and materials palette (MCK Architects) 1201-2010-05a Landscape strategy (Tyler Grange) 1201-2010-14 Tree Survey plan (Tyler Grange) 1201-2010/16 Landmark features design sheet (Tyler Grange) 1201-2010/17 Boundary treatments design sheet (Tyler Grange) 1201-2010-18b Soft landscape proposals overview sheet (Tyler Grange) 1201-2010-19b Soft landscape proposals – Sheet 1 (Tyler Grange) 1201-2010-20b Soft landscape proposals – Sheet 2 (Tyler Grange) 1201-2010-21b Soft landscape proposals – Sheet 3 (Tyler Grange) 1201-2010-22b Soft landscape proposals – Sheet 4 (Tyler Grange) SCP08100F01C Proposed access off Manchester Road (Singleton Clamp & Partners) SCP10294F02 Proposed access off Crossings Road (Singleton Clamp & Partners)

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 14 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/11/2159038

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr Peter Taylor Solicitor, of DLA Piper, Victoria Square House, Victoria Square, Birmingham B2 4DL He called Mr Colin Barnes of Barnes Walker Ltd, Unit 6 Wearlee Works, Longley Lane, Manchester M22 4WT Mr Martin Seddon of Martin H Seddon Ltd, 47 Alms Hill Road, Sheffield S11 9RR

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Jeremy Cahill QC instructed by John Rose Associates He called Mr Jonathan Berry of Tyler Grange, 11 Market Place, Macclesfield, BA(Hons) DipLA AIEMA Cheshire SK10 1EB CMLI MArborA Mr Carl Copestake of John Rose Associates, 1-3 Berkeley Court, BA(Hons) DipUPI MRTPI Borough Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire ST5 1TT

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Ms Ruth George Mr Hugh Barton of Chapel Vision, Ms Sue Stockdale of Chapel-en-le-Frith Parish Council, Mr Paul Hellewell Mrs Jo Daniel Dr Derek Yalden Mr Paul Winter

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 15 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/11/2159038

DOCUMENTS

Documents submitted by the Appellant:

1 Opening statement 2 List of Plans 3 Responses to consultation on amended plans 4 Copy of e-mail dated 18 May 2012 from Chapel Vision Housing Group to Robinson Developments re sites in Chapel-en-le-Frith 5 Review of sites contained in Council’s estimate of 5-year land supply 6 Copy of Council’s Annual Monitoring Report 2010/11 7 Copy of High Peak Housing Land Availability Schedule as at 31 March 2012 8 Table of Comparison between Appellant and Council on Housing Land Availability 9 Extract from Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Draft Core Strategy Chapter 6 – Supporting the Rural Economy and Enhancing Prosperity 10 Comments by Primary Care Projects Officer NHS Derbyshire 11 Costing model for integrated primary care services, NHS Derbyshire 12 Additional landscaping condition 13 Closing Submissions

Documents submitted by the Council:

14 Letter of Notification of appeal and List of persons notified 15 Particulars of residential land for sale at Harpur Hill, Buxton 16 Letter dated 23 May 2012 to HPBC from DPP Consulting Ltd 17 Revised 5-year land supply position as at 22 May 2012 18 Letter dated 10 October 2008 to HPBC from Miller Homes 19 Copy of planning application dated 6 March 2012 by Elegant Homes at Sheffield Rd, Chapel-en-le-Frith 20 Copy of planning permission HPK/0003/9366 re Waterswallows Road, Buxton 21 List of Conditions

Documents submitted by Interested Persons:

22 Statement by Hugh Barton (of Chapel Vision) inc. Annex of responses to survey of suitability re major housing sites in Chapel-en-le-Frith 23 Statement by Ruth George 24 Bundle of plans re proposed residential sites - John Rose Assoc submission re Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy (Ruth George) 25 Table of sites (Ruth George) 26 Bundle of documents submitted by Suzan Stockdale, Clerk to Chapel-en-le- Frith Parish Council 27 Copy of Illustrative Masterplan by Barratt Homes (Mr Winter) 28 Statement by Mrs Jo Daniel

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 16

APPENDIX 5

Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWCA Civ 1610 Case No: C1/2013/2734 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEENS BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT HIS HONOUR JUDGE PELLING QC (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court) CO 4686 2013

Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 12/12/2013 Before :

LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY LORD JUSTICE RYDER and SIR DAVID KEENE ------Between :

City and District Council of St Albans Appellant - and - The Queen (on the application of) Hunston Properties 1st Respondent Limited Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 2nd Respondent and anr

------

Matthew Reed (instructed by the Appellant’s Head of Legal Services ) for the Appellant Paul Stinchcombe QC and Ned Helme (instructed by Photiades Solicitors ) for the First Respondent and (Treasury Solicitors for the Second Respondent). The Second Respondent did not appear.

Hearing date: 20 November 2013 ------Judgment

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. C+D council of St Albans v Hunston Properties & anr

Sir David Keene :

Introduction

1. This appeal concerns the interpretation of the relatively recent (March 2012) National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) and in particular of the policies contained therein in respect of residential development proposals. The issue is one which arises in the situation where, as in the present case and in a number of other planning authority areas, there is not as yet a local plan produced after and in accordance with the Framework.

2. Hunston Properties Limited (“Hunston”) applied for outline planning permission for the construction of 116 dwellings, a care home and some associated facilities on five hectares of agricultural land within the district of St Albans. Permission was refused by the District Council, now the appellant, principally on the ground that the site was almost entirely within the Metropolitan Green Belt. Hunston appealed under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) and, simplifying the history of the matter, the appeal was dismissed on 12 March 2013 by an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. Hunston then challenged that decision in the Administrative Court under Section 288 of the 1990 Act. H.H. Judge Pelling QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, quashed the inspector’s decision, and the Council now appeals with permission granted by Sullivan LJ. The Secretary of State appeared by counsel in the Administrative Court to resist the Section 288 challenge but seeks to play no part in these appeal proceedings.

3. I note the basis on which Sullivan LJ gave permission to appeal. He said that he was not persuaded that the appeal had a real prospect of success, but he found there to be a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard so that there could be a “definitive answer to the proper interpretation of paragraph 47” of the Framework, and in particular the interrelationship between the first and second bullet points in that paragraph.

Policy Context

4. The Framework was published by the Government in order to set out its planning policies for England, so as to give guidance to local planning authorities and other decisions-makers in the planning system. It was seen by the Minister for Planning as simplifying national planning guidance “by replacing over a thousand pages of national policy with around fifty, written simply and clearly.” Unhappily, as this case demonstrates, the process of simplification has in certain instances led to a diminution in clarity. It will be necessary to set out the wording of paragraph 47 of the Framework very soon in this judgment. I have to say that I have not found arriving at “a definitive answer” to the interpretative problem an easy task, because of ambiguity in the drafting. In such a situation, where one is concerned with non-statutory policy guidance issued by the Secretary of State, it would seem sensible for the Secretary of State to review and to clarify what his policy is intended to mean. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court in Tesco Stores Ltd -v- Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13 has emphasised that policy statements are to be interpreted objectively by the court in accordance with the language used and in its proper context, so that the meaning of the policy is for the courts, even if the application of the policy is for planning authorities and other planning decision-makers: see paragraphs 18 and 19. That case

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. C+D council of St Albans v Hunston Properties & anr

was concerned with policy in a statutory development plan, but it would seem difficult to distinguish between such a policy statement and one contained in non- statutory national policy guidance. I accept, therefore, as do the parties to this appeal, that it is for this court to seek to arrive at the appropriate meaning of paragraph 47 of the Framework.

5. That paragraph begins the section of the Framework entitled “Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes.” Insofar as material for present purposes, it reads as follows:

“47. To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should:

• Use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period;

• 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) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.”

These are the two bullet points referred to by Sullivan LJ.

6. There is no doubt, that in proceeding their local plans, local planning authorities are required to ensure that the “full objectively assessed needs” for housing are to be met, “as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework”. Those policies include the protection of Green Belt land. Indeed, a whole section of the Framework, Section 9, is devoted to that topic, a section which begins by saying “The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts”: Paragraph 79. The Framework seems to envisage some review in detail of Green Belt boundaries through the new Local Plan process, but states that “the general extent of Green Belts across the country is already established.” It seems clear, and is not in dispute in this appeal, that such a Local Plan could properly fall short of meeting the “full objectively assessed needs” for housing in its area because of the conflict which would otherwise arise with policies on the Green Belt or indeed on other designations hostile to development, such as those on Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or National Parks. What is likely to be significant in the preparation of this Local Plan for the district of St Albans is that

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. C+D council of St Albans v Hunston Properties & anr

virtually all the undeveloped land in the district outside the built up areas forms part of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

7. However, no such new Local Plan for this district currently exists. There remains the old-style Local Plan, the St. Albans City and District Local Plan Review, dating from 1994, but it is not suggested that its contents insofar as they deal with housing land requirements are of any relevance today. The most recent policy document containing a quantified assessment of such requirements in the district was the East of England Plan, which contained a figure of 360 dwelling units per annum, but that Plan was revoked on the 3 January 2013, in accordance with the Government’s move away from strategically based figures. Thus, as the inspector in the present case put it:

“there is a policy vacuum in terms of the housing delivery target.” [paragraph 23]

8. The appellant Council resolved on 17 January 2013 that the target of 360 dwellings per annum from 2001 to 2021 remained the most appropriate interim housing target for housing land supply purposes.

9. There are a number of other policies in the Framework which are of relevance. At paragraph 13 it states that the Framework:

“constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in drawing up plans and as a material consideration in determining applications.”

Paragraph 14 begins by saying that:

“At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan- making and decision-taking.”

It goes on in that same paragraph to spell out what that means for plan-making and for decision-taking. In respect of the latter, it sets out two bullet points. The first deals with cases where there is a development plan. The second is relevant to the present appeal:

“where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, [it means] granting permission unless:

any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole;

specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.”

A footnote, no.9, gives examples of such policies as are meant by that last sentence, including policies relating to land designated as Green Belt.

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. C+D council of St Albans v Hunston Properties & anr

10. As I have already said, the Framework includes specific policies to protect Green Belt land. Paragraphs 87 and 88 are of particular relevance. They state:

“87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

88. When considering any planning application, local authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

The Framework does not seek to define further what “other considerations” might outweigh the damage to the Green Belt, but in principle there seems no reason why in certain circumstances a shortfall in housing land supply might not do so.

The Planning Appeal and the Inspector’s Decision

11. It was agreed at the planning inquiry that the proposed development on this site would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The inspector noted that, by virtue of paragraph 87 of the Framework, it should not be permitted except in very special circumstances. That led her to the topic of housing land supply.

12. The inspector referred to paragraph 47 of the Framework and then considered the development plan position. She observed that there was “no definitive housing delivery requirement” in any relevant plan (paragraph 24 of decision letter). She described the Department for Communities and Local Government (“DCLG”) 2008 projections of new households as providing the most up-to-date figures. They gave a projection of 688 new households per annum in this district. Hunston contended for various upwards adjustments of that annual figure, but even without those it can be seen that arithmetically the projection produced a five year requirement of 3,440 dwelling units. Hunston’s figure was 3,600 units.

13. However, the inspector regarded such figures as failing to take account of the constraints on development within the district, particularly the Green Belt. She noted that the old East of England (regional) Plan had reflected such constraints and had come up with its figure of 360 units per annum:

“26… striking a balance of the social, economic and environmental objectives with the aim of achieving sustainable development. The balance was evidence based, consulted upon, subject to a sustainability appraisal, justified and publically examined.”

The inspector added that there was no evidence to suggest that the constraints would be any less applicable now, and at paragraph 29 she said that the figure in the East of England Plan (the RSS):

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. C+D council of St Albans v Hunston Properties & anr

“29. … provided housing requirements for the period to 2021 and took account of the severe constraints in the District. It provides the only figure that has been scrutinised through the independent examination process. Government policy aims for localism rather than top down set targets but there was nothing to indicate that the constraints identified in the RSS process are reduced because the RSS is no longer extant.”

14. Consequently, the inspector concluded as follows on housing need:

“At this time and in the absence of an identified need that takes account of any constraints to development and acknowledging the age of the RSS data, and the fact that the RSS has now been revoked, I consider it is reasonable that the annual housing target should have regard to constraints in the district and be that which takes them into account. As resolved by the Council on 17 January 2013, provision should be made for a minimum of 360 residential units per annum on specific deliverable sites.” (Paragraph 30)

15. On the supply side of the exercise, the District Council put forward a figure of 2183 dwelling unit sites available within five years. On analysis, the inspector found that that was too high by about 100 units, but nonetheless it meant that there was a supply of housing land in excess of the five year requirement if that was put at 360 dwellings per annum. As a five year total, she appears to have put the total five year housing land supply at about 2080 units. Thus the inspector at paragraph 67 concluded:

“67. Additional delivery of housing would be of value as would the proposed affordable housing provision whether at 35% or 53%. Nevertheless, the five year housing land supply has been found to be robust even if the delivery may not be as high as the Council advises on some sites. A 5% buffer over and above the five year supply has been found to be appropriate and there is a realistic prospect that adequate provision has been made for the delivery of five years plus 5% supply of housing land. Therefore the supply of additional housing on a greenfield Green Belt site is not afforded weight.”

16. The inspector in her overall conclusion on the residential development gave weight to certain factors, but said:

“However, in the absence of an identified need for the release of a greenfield Green Belt site, the substantial harm to the Green Belt and significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside are not clearly outweighed by the other material considerations either individually or as a whole. Therefore the very special circumstances necessary to justify the inappropriate residential development in the Green Belt do not exist.” (Paragraph 71)

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. C+D council of St Albans v Hunston Properties & anr

She added that the development would be contrary to Local Plan policies and to Government policy in the Framework, and consequently she dismissed the appeal.

The High Court Decision

17. In the Section 288 proceedings it was argued by Hunston that the inspector had erred by failing to identify the “full objectively assessed needs” for housing in the area, as required by the first bullet point in paragraph 47 of the Framework, and had failed, in this situation where there was no new Local Plan containing housing requirements, to recognise the shortfall between those needs and the supply of housing sites. Had she adopted the correct policy approach, she might have found that very special circumstances, sufficient to outweigh the contribution of the appeal site to the Metropolitan Green Belt, existed. Thus she erred in law.

18. The deputy judge accepted this argument. In his judgment at paragraph 28 he said:

“28. Where it is being contended that very special circumstances exist because of a shortfall caused by the difference between the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing and that which can be provided from the supply of specific deliverable sites identified by the relevant planning authority, I do not see how it can be open to a LPA or Inspector to reach a conclusion as to whether that very special circumstance had been made out by reference to a figure that does not even purport to reflect the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing applicable at the time the figure was arrived at.”

He went on to add:

“A figure that takes account of constraints should not have any role to play in assessing an assertion by an applicant in the position of HPL that an actual housing requirement has not been met.”

He observed that the Framework did not encourage the use of need figures derived from such earlier regional plans as the East of England Plan, as it could have done if it had been intended by the government that such should be the approach where a new Local Plan prepared in accordance with the Framework had not been adopted.

19. The District Council had relied upon the wording of the first bullet point in paragraph 47 of the Framework and in particular the words about meeting the housing needs “as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework.” The Council contended that this justified the inspector’s use of figures for housing needs which reflected the very substantial constraints on development within this district. The judge rejected that argument, commenting at paragraph 29:

“… the suggestion that the words “… in so far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework…” requires or permits a decision maker to adopt an old RSS figure is unsustainable as a matter of language. That language requires

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. C+D council of St Albans v Hunston Properties & anr

that the decision maker considers each application or appeal on its merits. Having identified the full objectively assessed needs figure the decision maker must then consider the impact of the other policies set out in the NPPF…

…

… It is entirely circular to argue that there are no very special circumstances based on objectively assessed but unfulfilled need that can justify development in the Green Belt by reference to a figure that has been arrived at under a revoked policy which was arrived at taking account of the need to avoid development in the Green Belt.”

20. He concluded that the inspector’s approach had been wrong in law. The proper approach was to assess need, then identify the unfulfilled need having regard to the supply of specific deliverable sites, and then to decide whether fulfilling the need (plus any other factors in favour of permission) clearly outweighed the harm which would be caused to the Green Belt. As he rightly said, that final stage involved planning judgment, which was not for the court. As a result he quashed the inspector’s decision.

Discussion

21. In essence, the issue is the approach to be adopted as a matter of policy towards a proposal for housing development on a Green Belt site where the housing requirements for the relevant area have not yet been established by the adoption of a Local Plan produced in accordance with the policies in the Framework. Such development is clearly inappropriate development in the Green Belt and should only be granted planning permission if “very special circumstances” can be demonstrated. That remains government policy: paragraph 87 of the Framework. In principle, a shortage of housing land when compared to the needs of an area is capable of amounting to very special circumstances. None of these propositions is in dispute.

22. Neither party before us sought to take issue with the inspector’s findings as to the supply of housing land over the five year period in this district. But, as will be evident from the earlier passages in this judgment, the inspector found that there was no shortfall in the supply because she regarded it as necessary to identify a housing requirement figure which reflected the constraints on built development in the district generally which resulted from the extensive areas of Green Belt there. The best she felt she could do was to adopt the earlier East of England Plan figure which, though in a revoked plan, sought to take account of such constraints. Was she entitled to do so?

23. The appellant Council contends that she was. On its behalf Mr. Reed emphasises the close links between the first two bullet points of paragraph 47 of the Framework (which I will number 47(1) and (2) for the sake of convenience.) Paragraph 47(2) requires there to be five years supply of housing sites, that is to say a supply sufficient to meet a local planning authority’s housing requirements for five years. But to discover what is meant by the reference to housing requirements, one has to go to paragraph 47(1), and while that refers to “the full objectively assessed needs,” it also adds the qualification “as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. C+D council of St Albans v Hunston Properties & anr

Framework.” That, it is submitted, means that one has to take into account such policies as those on the protection of the Green Belt. The qualification does not relate solely to the process of producing a Local Plan. Paragraph 47(1) has to be read as a whole and, if one goes to it as Hunston do for the reference to “full objectively assessed needs” when dealing with a development control decision, one must take on board the qualification as well. One cannot rely on the objectively assessed needs part without having regard to the reference to policy constraints.

24. The Council contends that the inspector used the former East of England plan figure for housing requirements while recognising that it was not ideal. But she was doing her best to arrive at an assessment which reflected the whole of paragraph 47(1) and not just part of it, so as to include the constraints flowing from other policies as well as the household projections. The mere fact that this was a development control situation as opposed to local plan formulation does not, it is said, undermine the need to reflect the whole of paragraph 47(1). The policies in the Framework provide guidance, as paragraph 13 states, both for the drawing up of plans and in the determination of planning applications.

25. I see the force of these arguments, but I am not persuaded that the inspector was entitled to use a housing requirement figure derived from a revoked plan, even as a proxy for what the local plan process may produce eventually. The words in paragraph 47(1), “as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework” remind one that the Framework is to be read as a whole, but their specific role in that sub-paragraph seems to me to be related to the approach to be adopted in producing the Local Plan. If one looks at what is said in that sub-paragraph, it is advising local planning authorities:

“to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework.”

That qualification contained in the last clause quoted is not qualifying housing needs. It is qualifying the extent to which the Local Plan should go to meet those needs. The needs assessment, objectively arrived at, is not affected in advance of the production of the Local Plan, which will then set the requirement figure.

26. Moreover, I accept Mr Stinchcombe QC’s submissions for Hunston that it is not for an inspector on a Section 78 appeal to seek to carry out some sort of local plan process as part of determining the appeal, so as to arrive at a constrained housing requirement figure. An inspector in that situation is not in a position to carry out such an exercise in a proper fashion, since it is impossible for any rounded assessment similar to the local plan process to be done. That process is an elaborate one involving many parties who are not present at or involved in the Section 78 appeal. I appreciate that the inspector here was indeed using the figure from the revoked East of England Plan merely as a proxy, but the government has expressly moved away from a “top-down” approach of the kind which led to the figure of 360 housing units required per annum. I have some sympathy for the inspector, who was seeking to interpret policies which were at best ambiguous when dealing with the situation which existed here, but it seems to me to have been mistaken to use a figure for housing

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. C+D council of St Albans v Hunston Properties & anr

requirements below the full objectively assessed needs figure until such time as the Local Plan process came up with a constrained figure.

27. It follows from this that I agree with the judge below that the inspector erred by adopting such a constrained figure for housing need. It led her to find that there was no shortfall in housing land supply in the district. She should have concluded, using the correct policy approach, that there was such a shortfall. The supply fell below the objectively assessed five year requirement.

28. However, that is not the end of the matter. The crucial question for an inspector in such a case is not: is there a shortfall in housing land supply? It is: have very special circumstances been demonstrated to outweigh the Green Belt objection? As Mr Stinchcombe recognised in the course of the hearing, such circumstances are not automatically demonstrated simply because there is a less than a five year supply of housing land. The judge in the court below acknowledged as much at paragraph 30 of his judgment. Self-evidently, one of the considerations to be reflected in the decision on “very special circumstances” is likely to be the scale of the shortfall.

29. But there may be other factors as well. One of those is the planning context in which that shortfall is to be seen. The context may be that the district in question is subject on a considerable scale to policies protecting much or most of the undeveloped land from development except in exceptional or very special circumstances, whether because such land is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Park or Green Belt. If that is the case, then it may be wholly unsurprising that there is not a five year supply of housing land when measured simply against the unvarnished figures of household projections. A decision-maker would then be entitled to conclude, if such were the planning judgment, that some degree of shortfall in housing land supply, as measured simply by household formation rates, was inevitable. That may well affect the weight to be attached to the shortfall.

30. I therefore reject Mr Stinchcombe’s submission that it is impossible for an inspector to take into account the fact that such broader, district-wide constraints exist. The Green Belt may come into play both in that broader context and in the site specific context where it is the trigger for the requirement that very special circumstances be shown. This is not circular, nor is it double-counting, but rather a reflection of the fact that in a case like the present it is not only the appeal site which has a Green Belt designation but the great bulk of the undeveloped land in the district outside the built- up areas. This is an approach which takes proper account of the need to read the Framework as a whole and indeed to read paragraph 47 as a whole. It would, in my judgment, be irrational to say that one took account of the constraints embodied in the polices in the Framework, such as Green Belt, when preparing the local plan, as paragraph 47(1) clearly intends, and yet to require a decision-maker to close his or her eyes to the existence of those constraints when making a development control decision. They are clearly relevant planning considerations in both exercises.

31. There seemed to be some suggestion by Hunston in the course of argument that a local planning authority, which did not produce a local plan as rapidly as it should, would only have itself to blame if the objectively-assessed housing need figures produced a shortfall and led to permission being granted on protected land, such as Green Belt, when that would not have happened if there had been a new-style local plan in existence. That is not a proper approach. Planning decisions are ones to be

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. C+D council of St Albans v Hunston Properties & anr

arrived at in the public interest, balancing all the relevant factors and are not to be used as some form of sanction on local councils. It is the community which may suffer from a bad decision, not just the local council or its officers.

32. Where this inspector went wrong was to use a quantified figure for the five year housing requirement which departed from the approach in the Framework, especially paragraph 47. On the figures before her, she was obliged (in the absence of a local plan figure) to find that there was a shortfall in housing land supply. However, decision-makers in her position, faced with their difficult task, have to determine whether very special circumstances have been shown which outweigh the contribution of the site in question to the purposes of the Green Belt. The ultimate decision may well turn on a number of factors, as I have indicated, including the scale of the shortfall but also the context in which that shortfall is to be seen, a context which may include the extent of important planning constraints in the district as a whole. There may be nothing special, and certainly nothing “very special” about a shortfall in a district which has very little undeveloped land outside the Green Belt. But ultimately that is a matter of planning judgment for the decision-maker.

Conclusion

33. The inspector did err in law in the approach she adopted to calculating the housing land requirement over the five year period. I would therefore quash her decision. The Section 78 appeal will consequently have to be redetermined in accordance with the guidance in this judgment, if my Lords agree. I would dismiss this appeal.

Lord Justice Ryder:

34. I agree.

Lord Justice Maurice Kay:

35. I also agree.

APPENDIX 6 KNIGHTS LLP - HIGH PEAK 5 YEAR HOUSING LAND SUPPLY ASSESSMENT BASED ON HOUSING EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION (DOCUMENT MF1 - JUNE 2014 HOUSING LAND SUPPLY SCHEDULE) 2006 USED AS A BASE DATE AS PREVIOUS UNDER-DELIVERY NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

FORMER RSS REQUIREMENT OF 300 PER ANNUM

2006 - 31 March 2014 Dwellings Delivered 1765 Actural Requirement 2400

Monitoring Year Housing Delivered Actual Requirement Over/Under Delivery 2006 - 2007 599 300 299 2007 - 2008 360 300 60 2008 - 2009 167 300 -133 2009 - 2010 137 300 -163 2010 - 2011 157 300 -143 2011 - 2012 102 300 -198 2012 - 2013 207 300 -93 2013 - 2014 36 300 -264 1765 2400 -635

RSS Annual Requirement 300 Supply 2394 5 Year Requirement 1500 (300 x 5) Previous under-delivery identified in table above 635 New 5 year requirement 2135 (1500 + 390) New annual requirement 427 (1990 / 5) Annual 20% buffer 85 (20% of 398) Annual requirement with 20% buffer 512 (427 + 85) 5 year requirement with 20% buffer 2562 (512 x 5) 5 year supply plus 20% 4.67 (2642 / 478) Shortfall 168 (2562 - 2394) DRAFT LOCAL PLAN REQUIREMENT OF 360 PER ANNUM

2006 - 31 March 2014 Dwellings Delivered 1765 Actual Requirement 2580

Monitoring Year Housing Delivered Actual Requirement Over/Under Delivery 2006 - 2007 599 300 299 2007 - 2008 360 300 60 2008 - 2009 167 300 -133 2009 - 2010 137 300 -163 2010 - 2011 157 300 -143 2011 - 2012 102 360 -258 2012 - 2013 207 360 -153 2013 - 2014 36 360 -324 1765 2580 -815

Draft Plan Requirement 360 Supply 2394 5 Year Requirement 1800 (360 x 5) Previous under-delivery identified in table above 815 New 5 year requirement 2615 (1800 + 815) New annual requirement 523 (2615/ 5) Annual 20% buffer 105 (20% of 523) Annual requirement with 20% buffer 628 (523 + 105) 5 year requirement with 20% buffer 3138 (628 x 5) 5 year supply plus 20% 3.81 (2394 / 628) Shortfall 744 (3138 - 2394) SHMA OBJECTIVELY ASSESSED NEED OF 420 PER ANNUM (LOWER FIGURE)

2006 - 31 March 2014 Dwellings Delivered 1910 Actural Requirement 2760

Monitoring Year Housing Delivered Actual Requirement Over/Under Delivery 2006 - 2007 599 300 299 2007 - 2008 360 300 60 2008 - 2009 167 300 -133 2009 - 2010 137 300 -163 2010 - 2011 157 300 -143 2011 - 2012 102 420 -318 2012 - 2013 207 420 -213 2013 - 2014 36 420 -384 1765 2760 -995

Draft Plan Requirement 420 Supply 2394 5 Year Requirement 2100 (420 x 5) Previous under-delivery identified in table above 995 New 5 year requirement 3095 (2100 + 995) New annual requirement 619 (2950 / 5) Annual 20% buffer 124 (20% of 590) Annual requirement with 20% buffer 743 (590 + 118) 5 year requirement with 20% buffer 3714 (708 x 5) 5 year supply plus 20% 3.22 (2642 / 708) Shortfall 1320 (3714 - 2394) SHMA OBJECTIVELY ASSESSED NEED OF 470 PER ANNUM (HIGHER FIGURE)

2006 - 31 March 2014 Dwellings Delivered 1910 Actural Requirement 2910

Monitoring Year Housing Delivered Actual Requirement Over/Under Delivery 2006 - 2007 599 300 299 2007 - 2008 360 300 60 2008 - 2009 167 300 -133 2009 - 2010 137 300 -163 2010 - 2011 157 300 -143 2011 - 2012 102 470 -368 2012 - 2013 207 470 -263 2013 - 2014 36 470 -434 1765 2910 -1145

Draft Plan Requirement 470 Supply 2394 5 Year Requirement 2350 (470 x 5) Previous under-delivery identified in table above 1145 New 5 year requirement 3495 (3495 + 1145) New annual requirement 699 (3495 / 5) Annual 20% buffer 140 (20% of 699) Annual requirement with 20% buffer 839 (699 + 140) 5 year requirement with 20% buffer 4194 (839 x 5) 5 year supply plus 20% 2.85 (2642 / 804) Shortfall 1800 (4194 - 2394)

APPENDIX 7

Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 15, 16 and 17 January 2014 Site visit made on 17 January 2014 by Brendan Lyons BArch MA MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 12 June 2014

Appeal Ref: APP/H1033/A/13/2204114 Land at Dinting Road and Shaw Lane, Glossop, Derbyshire SK13 7UU • 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 Loxley Developments Ltd against the decision of High Peak Borough Council. • The application Ref HPK/2013/0324, dated 4 June 2013, was refused by notice dated 20 August 2013. • The development proposed is residential development for up to 93 dwellings.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for residential development for up to 93 dwellings at Land at Dinting Road and Shaw Lane, Glossop, Derbyshire SK13 7UU, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref HPK/2013/0324 dated 4 June 2013, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule annexed to this decision.

Preliminary matters

2. The planning application that is the subject of the appeal was submitted in outline form, with only the principle of development and the access to the site for full approval at this stage, and matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for later detailed approval.

3. The application was accompanied by heads of terms for a planning obligation under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A copy of a completed obligation, in the form of a planning agreement between the Council and the landowners, was submitted during the Inquiry. The agreement sets out covenants in respect of the provision and management of affordable housing on the site, the payment of financial contributions towards the provision and management of off-site open space and play space, and the submission and implementation of a travel plan. The merits of the obligation are considered later in this decision.

4. Following the close of the Inquiry, it emerged that as part of the evidence base for the emerging Local Plan the Council had commissioned consultants to carry out a Landscape Impact Assessment (‘LIA’) 1, and that this document had been published on the Council’s website on the day the Inquiry opened. The LIA

1 Wardell Armstrong: High Peak Local Plan Landscape Impact Assessment January 2014 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2204114

included an appraisal of the landscape aspects of sites potentially to be allocated for development in the emerging Local Plan, and also made specific comment on the appeal site.

5. The main parties concurred that the LIA was of direct relevance to the appeal and should have been brought before the Inquiry. Accordingly, I decided to accept the report as an additional Inquiry core document. The main parties were allowed further time to make written submissions on the status and content of the LIA. The opportunity was also given to request re-opening of the Inquiry if necessary, but no such request was made. I concluded that I had sufficient information to proceed on the basis of the written material, which has been taken into account in reaching this decision.

6. Also following the close of the Inquiry, planning practice guidance was published in support of the Government policy set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’), and much former guidance was cancelled. The main parties were allowed further time to make written submissions on the implications of the practice guidance for the appeal, but neither party wished to identify any change in their case.

Main Issue

7. It was agreed at the Inquiry that the main issue in the appeal is:

Whether, if there is less than a five year supply of deliverable housing land, the proposal would amount to a sustainable form of development in accordance with national and local policy, having particular regard to:

• The effect on the countryside character of the area;

• The location and accessibility of the site.

Reasons

8. The appeal site lies adjacent to the south-eastern built-up edge of the small town of Hadfield. It is a roughly triangular parcel of land, some 4.7ha in area, which has been used for hay production and grazing. The base of the triangle and main frontage is provided by Dinting Road, which runs east to neighbouring Glossop. The eastern boundary is formed by the tree-lined cutting of the local railway line, while the third side is bounded by Shaw Lane, which is addressed by some older terraces of houses and a former farmhouse, as well as by more recent suburban-style housing.

9. A public footpath runs through the centre of the site and continues south beyond Dinting Road between the car park for the adjoining railway station and the extensive industrial site occupied by Carpenters. The land to the east of the railway line, including a large quarry on the slopes of Castle Hill, is designated as Green Belt.

10. Permission is sought to develop the site with up to 93 houses, 30% of which (28 units) would be provided as affordable housing. A single point of access would be taken mid-way along the Dinting Road frontage. An indicative masterplan suggests a potential layout of cul-de-sac roads lined by a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced houses, with the existing footpath forming a green route through the site.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2204114

Policy context

13. The LP was drafted to cover the period to 2011, and the settlement boundaries defined by LP Policy GD2 will have reflected the need for and supply of land for new development, particularly housing, at the time the plan was drafted. The LP text explains that boundaries were quite tightly drawn around previous built-up areas. The settlement boundaries can now be seen as time-expired and the restriction they impose on the location of new housing as out of date. Policy OC1 provides a complementary and integral part of this restriction.

14. Furthermore, it is common ground that, allowing the 20% buffer for persistent past under-delivery advised by the NPPF, the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land. Although the precise level of shortfall is not fully agreed (at 3.7 or 3.8 years’ supply), the slight difference between the parties is of no great consequence for the appeal. In these circumstances, the NPPF advises that the housing supply policies of the development plan cannot be regarded as up-to-date. The restriction imposed by Policies GD2, OC1 and H1 in combination is relevant to the supply of housing.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2204114

acknowledges that location within the policy allocation does not in itself preclude residential development. This has been reflected in appeal decisions and in the Council’s own resolutions to allow development on other sites.

Countryside character

18. The site has not been identified for any designation for the quality of its own landscape or its contribution to a wider area of landscape value. It provides a worthwhile extent of open land at the edge of the built-up area, giving a spacious character to this stretch of Dinting Road, which is reinforced by the lack of frontage development on the opposite side of the road. Views from the public footpath encompass a wide vista from the slopes of the Peak District National Park to the south around to distant hills to the west, with the main urban area of Hadfield largely hidden.

19. Urban development provides a significant component of even these distant views. At shorter range, appreciation of the site is coloured by the closeness of features such as the housing on Dinting Road and Shaw Lane, and the station car park and industrial activity to the south. As a result, the site has an ‘urban fringe’ character rather than one of truly rural open countryside.

20. Development of the site for housing would significantly change its character. As perceived at close range, it would no longer provide an expansive area of green at the urban edge. The location of the access road would introduce a node of vehicular activity into the currently quiet frontage. Users of the footpath would lose the impression of passing through open fields, and the scale of views would inevitably be constrained by the new houses.

21. Some mitigation could be provided by the final layout of development, as suggested by the indicative masterplan and the submitted Parameters Plan. The Dinting Road frontage should be well landscaped, with a row of houses set behind trees to form a relatively seamless continuation of the existing suburban-type houses along Shaw Lane and Dinting Road to the west. The footpath should be incorporated within a green corridor through the site, overlooked by dwellings. The existing pond would be retained and enhanced as part of a landscaped frontage to Shaw Lane. The sloping bank to the east of the site should be well planted, to form a green backdrop to the new houses, and the elevated area above the bank kept free of development to provide a wide buffer along the eastern boundary.

22. The completed form of development, subject to final decisions on design and layout, should deliver an acceptable treatment for the site that would not appear out of place with the adjoining housing area. With the south side of Dinting Road remaining free of built development, the proposal would provide a rational extension of the urban edge of Hadfield.

23. By allowing the continuation of built development on one side of the road almost to the railway line, there would undoubtedly be an impact on the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2204114

perceived gap between Hadfield and Glossop, as experienced by those passing along Dinting Road. This is the issue which appears to be of greatest concern to many local residents, and has been pursued by the Council in the appeal, although concern over coalescence of settlements is not specifically cited in the reason for refusal.

24. However, a marked gap would remain to the east of the railway line, defined by the Green Belt land to the north of the road and the currently largely undeveloped land to the south. Although the topography and scale of the landscape tends to produce a greater sense of enclosure than the open swathe of the appeal site, the Green Belt designation serves its purpose of providing separation between the two settlements. The different roles and character of the two towns would not be compromised.

25. The Council’s concern is particularly focused on the situation should the land allocations proposed in the emerging Local Plan to the south of the road be confirmed. But as outlined above, little weight can be given at this stage to these draft allocations. Similarly, little weight can currently be given to the proposed ‘strategic gap’ to the west of the railway line including the appeal site, identified by draft Policy S5, which is subject to objection and might also be affected by the evidence of the LIA, considered below.

26. The potential effect of the draft allocations is also critical to the Council’s concerns about the visual impact of development in longer views. For example, the panoramic view from within the National Park at Coombes Edge would be significantly different if the potentially allocated land to the south of Dinting Road were to be developed. A substantial area of green would be replaced by development, which would extend close to the appeal site, giving rise to an understandable concern about visual coalescence.

27. But as little weight can be given to these draft allocations, the issue in this appeal must focus on the effect of development of the appeal site alone. Under current conditions the site is not particularly prominent in the view from Coombes Edge, appearing as part of a patchwork of green spaces separated by tree belts. Other features such as the nearby quarry and the Carpenters building stand out more clearly. The appeal proposal would be seen as an extension of the narrow band of housing development to the west. But even with the anticipated mitigation of planting along Dinting Road and the eastern bank, it would appear from this angle as an interruption of the near continuous belt of green from the school playing fields and park to the north, to the open land on the south side of Dinting Road, which collectively appear as part of the lower slopes of Castle Hill. There would be some adverse intrusive effect, but the altered patchwork of development would not produce coalescence with Lower Dinting, as feared by the National Park’s landscape architect, or cause significant harm to the quality of the National Park.

28. In my judgement there would be a similar effect in other long-range views from the south, such as from Simmondley and Hargate Hill 2. The proposal would be equally prominent in the view from Mottram 3, and while appearing as a more organic extension of the existing housing to the west, would again sever the visual continuity of green space on the lower slopes of Castle Hill, and would reduce the visual gap between settlements. The mitigation offered

2 Appellants’ viewpoints 9 and 12 3 Council’s suggested viewpoint adjoining Mottram school www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2204114

by planting should be more effective in the somewhat closer and less elevated view from the west near Gamesley 4, but there would be a clear perception of the enlargement of the built-up area.

29. The recently published LIA has been prepared for the Council as part of the evidence base for the emerging Local Plan. As it is not clear to what extent the document’s recommendations will eventually be reflected in the adopted plan, little formal weight can be given to it at this stage. Nevertheless, the document has some value as an independent expert appraisal of landscape issues in relation to sites with potential for development.

30. The authors of the study have chosen to consider the appeal site separately from the remainder of the land identified in the Preferred Options policy S5 allocation as a strategic gap between Hadfield and Glossop. While endorsing the value of that land as a strategic gap, they include the appeal site among a number classed as having potential to accommodate development. They echo the Council’s concern in this appeal about the risk of coalescence if both the appeal site and land to the east of the railway line were to be developed, but conclude that development of the site in isolation would not affect the purposes of the strategic gap.

31. The Council’s response to the LIA for the purpose of the appeal raises some pertinent queries. It is difficult to see why the land to the north of Dinting Road should be regarded as less prominent from the National Park than the land to the south. Any distinction between physical and visual coalescence would be appear to be equally applicable throughout the potential gap, but to be less relevant in long range views.

32. The Council’s ultimate response will be reflected in the proposals of the draft Local Plan finally submitted for formal examination. Little significance can be attached to the omission of altered boundaries for the S5 gap from the recent round of consultation. The published study’s findings lend some weight to the appellants’ case. The mitigation recommended as an appropriate landscape structure, including planting along Dinting Road, would be similar to that now proposed.

34. However, it is noteworthy that while the 1997 Inspector endorsed previous views on the potential harmful effects of development of the site, and for those

4 Appellants’ viewpoint 7 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2204114

reasons opposed its allocation, he also rejected its inclusion within the Green Belt, because he envisaged that the land might be required to meet future development needs. This is very much the situation faced in the current appeal.

35. The Council does not seek dismissal of the appeal on grounds of prematurity. However, concern was expressed at the Inquiry on behalf of some local residents that approval of the appeal proposal would be premature in the light of the emerging Local Plan and would potentially invalidate consultation to date. The NPPF policy is that weight to be given to emerging plans is subject to the stage of their preparation and the extent to which there are unresolved objections. The planning guidance advises that refusal on grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified where a draft Local Plan has yet to be submitted for examination. The latest round of public consultation shows that the Council is itself considering some change to the proposals for the area east of the railway line. The scale of the appeal proposal would not be so substantial that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development.

36. To conclude on this issue, I consider that development of the appeal site would have an urbanising effect, notwithstanding the site’s existing ‘urban fringe’ character. There would be harm arising from the loss of the open green land at the edge of the built-up area, particularly as appreciated by people passing along Dinting Road and on the footpath through the site, but there would be potential for mitigation in the final layout and landscaping of the development. The development of the site alone would not result in the closure of the gap between Hadfield and Glossop, as perceived from Dinting Road. In longer views, there would be some harmful effects on the landscape arising from the extension of the built-up area, despite the mitigation offered by proposed planting, but the gap between settlements would remain and the quality of the National Park would not be significantly affected.

Location and accessibility

37. There is no dispute that saved LP Policy TR1, which seeks to reduce the need to travel and to widen transport choices, is up to date and consistent with the NPPF, which encourages patterns of growth that make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling. The first reason for refusal of the application cites conflict with Policy TR1 because the site’s location is seen as unsustainable owing to its distance to local services.

38. The site is immediately adjacent to Dinting railway station, which offers frequent services to central Manchester, some 30 minutes away. The submitted Transport Assessment shows that public transport access to other centres, such as Ashton-Under-Lyne, can be achieved within 30-60 minutes. This good level of access to the employment, shopping and leisure opportunities offered by those centres must carry considerable weight in any assessment of the site’s accessibility by sustainable modes of travel.

39. In addition to the regular train services to the centres of Glossop and Hadfield, the site is also served by bus services on Dinting Road and somewhat further away on Newshaw Lane. The latter stop would be slightly beyond the recommended walking distance from parts of the site, but as a closer alternative would be available, this would not be unacceptable. The appellants’

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2204114

proposed relocation of the Dinting Road stops to the west side of the station, which can be secured by a planning condition, would greatly enhance their attractiveness to potential residents, without compromising interchange with rail services. Despite some shortcomings in terms of quality of facilities, frequency of some services and distance from the Newshaw Lane stops, taken as a whole this level of provision would allow reasonably good access to the facilities at local town centres.

40. The Council’s greatest concern appears to relate to journeys on foot, with particular emphasis on the poor quality of many footpaths relied upon in the appellants’ calculations of distances. On the evidence of my visits to the area, I accept that many of these routes are far from ideal in terms of gradient, paving, lighting and personal safety. These paths are used at present and could be by future residents in appropriate circumstances, but their use would not be essential. I note that the vast majority of local destinations assessed under the Council’s ‘Safe and Suitable’ criteria would lie within 2000m of the centre of the site. In particular, I note that all schools and colleges would fall well within that limit, which is recommended by the Institution of Highways and Transportation 5. Whilst both larger supermarkets would lie just outside that limit, the site would have access to a local convenience store, public house and takeaways within 1000m, at Green Lane.

Other issues

42. The former farmhouse immediately to the north of the site was previously included on the statutory list of buildings of architectural or historic interest, and, despite alteration, continues to display a degree of heritage value. The appeal site forms part of the building’s immediate setting, and as open land provides some evidence of its former use. However, there is no suggestion that the heritage significance of the farmhouse would be substantially harmed by the proposal, which could be designed to maintain views of the building, particularly from the public footpath. This reflects the conclusions of the 1992 appeal, when the building was still formally listed.

43. The application was accompanied by a Protected Species Ecological Report which confirmed the site’s generally low ecological value, and endorsed the recommendations for potential biodiversity enhancement set out in an earlier report. The Report’s conclusions were based on the premise that the retention of mature trees and the provision of the buffer zone along the eastern boundary would ensure sufficient protection for bats using the fringes of the site. The Derbyshire Wildlife Trust, as adviser to the Council, accepted that in those circumstances a detailed bat survey was not required. Expert evidence

5 Institution of Highways and Transportation: Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot 2000, Tab3.2 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2204114

was given to the Inquiry that this was in accordance with Natural England Standing Advice and that no issue of licensing would arise, subject to the imposition of suitable conditions, to include compliance with the submitted Parameters Plan, the protection of trees and the implementation of enhancements. On that basis, I am satisfied that there would be no adverse effect on protected species.

Conditions

44. A schedule of conditions discussed between the two main parties to the appeal was provided on the opening day of the Inquiry. A revised schedule, indicating a broad measure of agreement, was later provided and this forms the basis of the schedule annexed to this decision. Subject to some amendment in the interests of precision and enforceability, I consider that the undisputed conditions would all be reasonable and necessary and would comply with the requirements of the NPPF and the planning practice guidance.

45. In addition to standard conditions on the submission of reserved matters and the commencement of development, a specific condition is required to ensure that the final form of development is controlled by adherence to the parameters of the Design and Access Statement and the site areas set out on the Parameters Plan, in order to protect the landscape infrastructure and ecological value of the site. Control of phasing is required to ensure adequate standards of living conditions during construction.

46. The group of conditions on Access and Highways are needed in the interests of highway safety and to promote a choice of sustainable modes of travel. Those on Flooding and Drainage are needed to minimise flood risk and to ensure the site is properly drained by sustainable methods, while those on Contamination are required to ensure the health and safety of future users of the site. A Construction Method Statement is needed to protect the living conditions of nearby residents and the safety of the highways near the site.

47. The arrangements for archaeological investigation and analysis are required to ensure that the site’s heritage value is preserved. The set of conditions headed Ecology are needed to ensure that the site’s ecological value would be preserved and enhanced. As I have earlier concluded that adherence to the Parameters Plan would provide sufficient protection for bats around the site, the condition requiring bat activity surveys sought by the Council would not be justified. Protection of existing trees is required to ensure their value for nature conservation and landscape quality is preserved.

48. The Sustainability Statement submitted with the application sets out a range of measures in the design and construction of the scheme to achieve a minimum 10% reduction in energy consumption and Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 or better. The NPPF strongly supports local initiatives to move towards a low carbon future. In the absence of an adopted development plan policy to reflect this, the Council’s proposed condition seeking achievement of a higher Code level would not be justified.

Planning agreement

49. The planning agreement concluded between the Council and the landowners allows for 30% of the dwellings on the site to be provided as affordable housing, for the timing of their provision and transfer to a registered provider,

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2204114

and for the means of allocation of future tenancies. Payments would be made to the Council as contributions towards the provision and maintenance of off- site open space or allotments and towards play provision at the nearby Newshaw Road facility. There would be a commitment to submit a Travel Plan for approval to Derbyshire County Council as highway authority, which would parallel the submission to the Council as planning authority secured by condition, and a payment towards monitoring costs.

50. I am satisfied that each of these covenants would comply with the tests set out in the NPPF and with the advice of the planning practice guidance. The obligation can be fully taken into account in support of the appeal proposal.

Balance of considerations

51. The NPPF seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing. There is no dispute that the Council’s five year supply is lacking. Recent evidence on the objective assessment of housing need for the emerging Local Plan suggests that the future housing requirement is likely to be greater than that set out in the now cancelled Regional Strategy. The contribution to meeting the considerable shortfall in supply lends substantial weight in support of the proposal.

52. The provision of 28 units of affordable housing would also help to address an identified need, and is a consideration of positive weight, even if the level of proposed provision would not exceed the requirements of development plan policy.

53. There would thus be clear evidence of the social dimension of sustainable development. The economic dimension would be illustrated by the employment generated during construction, by the addition to the local economy of the spending power of future residents and by the relatively modest financial gains of the New Homes Bonus. These economic factors add moderate weight in support of the proposal.

54. In environmental terms, the site would be well placed to avail residents of sustainable transport for longer trips, although less so for access on foot. The currently green and open character of the site at the urban edge would be replaced by development. This would alter the character of this edge of Hadfield but, importantly, would not alone result in the loss of the gap between settlements. The expansion of the built-up area would have some adverse effect on the pattern of open and developed land in both short and long distance views.

55. The adverse effects of development could be at least partly mitigated by successful landscape infrastructure and detailed design and layout, secured at the reserved matters stage. There would also be some enhancement of water features and opportunity for other biodiversity improvements on a site that lacks ecological interest. On balance, any environmental harm remaining after mitigation would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of development. In accordance with the NPPF, the proposal must be regarded as sustainable development to which the presumption in favour applies.

56. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed and outline planning permission granted subject to conditions.

Brendan Lyons INSPECTOR

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2204114

Annex

Appeal Ref: APP/H1033/A/13/2204114

Land at Dinting Road and Shaw Lane, Glossop, Derbyshire SK13 7UU

Schedule of conditions Nos.1-24

1. Details of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping (hereinafter called ‘the reserved matters’) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development is commenced and the development shall be carried out as approved.

2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission.

3. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

4. The reserved matters application(s) shall follow the general parameters of layout, scale, appearance and landscape set out in the Design and Access Statement and illustrated on the Indicative Masterplan (ref 1832/03 Rev C) and the Parameters Plan (ref TAG8 Rev A). In particular the reserved matters of layout and landscaping shall provide for undeveloped areas of green infrastructure adjacent to the watercourse and ephemeral pond along the north-west boundary and adjacent to the eastern boundary, as identified on the Parameters Plan.

5. No development shall take place until a scheme outlining the phasing of development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved phasing scheme.

Access and Highways

6. No building operations shall take place (other than site clearance), until space has been provided within the site curtilage for storage of plant and materials, site accommodation, loading and unloading of goods vehicles, parking and manoeuvring of site operatives’ and visitors’ vehicles, laid out and constructed in accordance with detailed designs that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The space shall be maintained throughout the contract period in accordance with the approved details, free from any impediment to its designated use.

7. No building operations shall take place (other than those to be carried out under Condition 6 above), until a new estate street junction has been formed to Dinting Road in accordance with plan ref SCP/12155/F01 Rev B, laid out, constructed to base course level and provided with 2.4m x 46m and 2.4m x 64m visibility splays to the east and west respectively, the area in advance of the sightlines being levelled and not to be included in any other plot or subdivision of the site and to be maintained thereafter free of obstruction taller than 600mm above the level of the adjoining carriageway.

8. No development shall take place until details of the footway fronting the site on Dinting Road, as shown on plan ref SCP/12155/F01 Rev B, have been

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2204114

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the footway has been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

9. No development shall take place until a scheme to relocate and upgrade two bus stops on Dinting Road has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the bus stops have been relocated and upgraded in accordance with the approved scheme.

10.No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the new estate streets between each respective plot and the existing public highway have been laid out in accordance with details approved as part of any reserved matters application.

11.No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until a full Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The measures set out in the approved plan shall be implemented thereafter. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval annually, on each anniversary of the date of this permission, for a period of five years from first occupation of the development.

Flooding and Drainage

12.No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site based on Sustainable Urban Drainage principles and the Flood Risk Assessment by Peak Associates (ref 12118b dated December 2012) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall not increase the amount and frequency of water entering the existing ephemeral pond and shall include:

a) Details of volumetric run-off control as per CIRIA SUDS Manual C697 with the rate set at Qbar if no infiltration is provided;

b) Details of exceedence event up to 1 in 100 year including climate change allowance;

c) Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion.

No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the scheme has been implemented in accordance with the approved details and with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme.

13.No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision of an undeveloped buffer zone alongside the watercourse has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include:

a) Plans showing the extent of the buffer;

b) Details of planting;

c) A management plan showing how the buffer zone shall be protected during development and maintained and protected after completion.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 12 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2204114

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and the buffer zone shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved management plan.

14.No development shall take place until a scheme for the foul drainage of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Contamination

15.No development shall take place until the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks of potential contamination of the site has each been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority:

a) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:

• All previous uses of the site;

• Potential contaminants associated with those uses;

• a conceptual model indicating sources, pathways and receptors and potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination;

b) A site investigation scheme, based on a) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors, including those off- site;

c) The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in b) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken;

d) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works in the remediation strategy set out in c) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer- term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

16.No development shall take place until a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The report shall include details of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include a plan for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan and the reporting of this to the local planning authority. The long-term monitoring and management plan shall be implemented as approved.

17.If during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site, then no further development shall be carried out until a remediation strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 13 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2204114

local planning authority, detailing how this contamination shall be dealt with. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

18.No development shall take place until monitoring of the site for the presence of ground/landfill gas and a subsequent risk assessment have been carried out in accordance with a scheme that has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The results of the monitoring and the risk assessment shall be forwarded to the local planning authority as soon as they are available. If the presence of ground/landfill gas is confirmed of there is evidence that migration of ground/landfill gas is likely to occur, development shall not be commenced until remedial measures have been taken to control and manage the gas and to monitor the effectiveness of the measures. All such measures shall be agreed in writing by the local planning authority before the commencement of development.

Amenity

19.No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All construction work shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Construction Method Statement, which shall include the following details:

a) The method and duration of any pile driving operations (expected starting date and completion date);

b) The hours of work, which shall not exceed the following:

• Construction and associated deliveries to the site shall not take place outside 07:00 to 19:00 hours Mondays to Fridays, and 08:00 to 16:00 hours on Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays or Bank Holiday.

• Pile driving shall not take place outside 09:00 to 16:00 hours Mondays to Fridays, nor at any time on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays.

c) The arrangements for prior notification to the occupiers of potentially affected properties.

d) The responsible person (e.g. site manager / office) who could be contacted in the event of complaint.

e) A scheme to minimise dust emissions arising from construction activities on the site. The scheme shall include details of all dust suppression measures and the methods to monitor emissions of dust arising from the development. The approved dust suppression measures shall be maintained in a fully functional condition for the duration of the construction phase.

f) Details of wheel washing facilities. All construction vehicles shall have their wheels cleaned before leaving the site.

g) Erection and maintenance of security hoarding and fencing.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 14 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2204114

Archaeology

20.No development shall take place until a written scheme of archaeological investigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and until any pre-start element has been completed in accordance with the approved scheme. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions and:

a) The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording;

b) The programme for post-investigation assessment;

c) Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording;

d) Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation;

e) Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation;

f) Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works.

The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post- investigation assessment have been completed in accordance with the approved written scheme of investigation, and the provision to be made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition have been secured.

Ecology

21.No development shall take place until a scheme for the protection and enhancement of the ephemeral pond has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

22.No development or other operations shall take place until an ecological enhancement and management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The management plan shall be based on the submitted Report of Enhancement Measures by Arbtech (December 2012). The approved management plan shall be implemented and subsequently maintained in accordance with the approved details.

23.No tree/shrub clearance work shall be carried out between 1 March and 31 August inclusive in any year, unless the site has been surveyed in advance for breeding birds and a scheme to protect breeding birds has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Trees

24.No development or other operations shall commence until a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement to include a scheme for the retention and protection of trees and hedges on or adjacent to the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 15 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2204114

shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Statement and protection scheme, and in particular:

a) No trees or hedgerows shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, cut back in any way or removed without the written approval of the local planning authority;

b) If any tree, shrub or hedge plant is removed without such approval, or dies or becomes severely damaged or diseased within 5 years from completion of the development hereby permitted, it shall be replaced by another tree, shrub or hedge plant of similar size and species, planted at such time as may be specified in writing by the local planning authority;

c) No operations shall commence on site (including soil moving, temporary access construction and/or widening or any operation involving the use of motorised vehicles or construction machinery) unless the protection works required by the submitted/approved protection scheme are in place;

d) No excavation for services, no storage of materials or machinery, no parking of vehicles, no deposit or excavation of soil or rubble, no lighting of fires and no disposal of liquids shall take place on the site within any area designated as being fenced off or otherwise protected in the submitted/approved protection scheme;

e) All protective fencing erected in accordance with the approved scheme shall be retained intact for the full duration of the construction of the development hereby permitted and shall not be moved or repositioned, without the prior written approval of the local planning authority.

______

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 16 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2204114

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Thea Osmund-Smith of Counsel Instructed by Nicola de Bruin, Solicitor, High Peak Borough Council She called: Robert White Director, BSc Hons MRTPI MIEMA CEnv White Peak Planning Limited Hilary Senior Policy Officer High Peak Borough Council

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Paul G Tucker QC Instructed by John Coxon, Principal Planning Consultant, Emery Planning Partnership He called: David Hackett Director, BSc(Hons) MLD PhD CMIEEM CEnv Solum Environmental Limited William Booker Director, BSc(Hons) SCP Transportation and Highway Consultants David Appleton Director, NDH MA MLI MIEMA The Appleton Group John Coxon Principal Planning Consultant, BSc(Hons) MPlan MRTPI Emery Planning Partnership

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Roger Hargreaves Local Resident Graham Proctor Local Resident

DOCUMENTS

1 Council’s letter of notification of the Inquiry and list of those notified 2 Highways technical note 3 Derbyshire County Council e-mail dated 13 January 2014 4 Plan and photographs of views of the site from Mottram 5 Opening submissions on behalf of the Appellant 6 Opening statement on behalf of High Peak Borough Council 7 Signed S106 Agreement 8 Draft schedule of conditions 9 Proposed Access plan ref SCP/12155/FO1 10 Responses to consultation on emerging Local Plan Policy S5 11 Appellants’ photographs from Mottram viewpoint 12 Supplementary evidence of David Appleton 13 Extract from Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Appraisal- Second edition 14 Proposed Access plan ref SCP/12155/FO1 Rev B 15 Train and bus timetables

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 17 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2204114

16 Response to Inspector’s questions by Mr Booker 17 Plan of locations for site visit 18 Amended draft schedule of conditions 19 Statement by Mr Hargreaves on behalf of the Save Shaw Fields Group 20 Topographical survey plan 21 Final draft schedule of conditions 22 Letter from Linden Myers Solicitors, dated 16 January 2014 23 Closing statement on behalf of High Peak Borough Council 24 Closing submissions on behalf of the Appellant

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 18

APPENDIX 8

Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 11, 12, 13 February and 5 March 2014 Site visit made on 5 March 2014 by Brendan Lyons BArch MA MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 12 June 2014

Appeal Ref: APP/H1033/A/13/2205644 Land off North Road, Glossop, Derbyshire SK13 7AX • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Gladman Developments against the decision of High Peak Borough Council. • The application Ref HPK/2013/0327, dated 13 June 2013, was refused by notice dated 10 September 2013. • The development proposed is described as: Residential development of up to 150 dwellings, including ‘affordable housing’, highway works, public open space and associated works.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for residential development of up to 150 dwellings, including ‘affordable housing’, highway works, public open space and associated works at Land off North Road, Glossop, Derbyshire SK13 7AX, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref HPK/2013/0327 dated 13 June 2013, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule annexed to this decision.

Preliminary matters

2. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by the appellants against the Council. That application is to be the subject of a separate Decision.

3. The planning application that is the subject of the appeal was submitted in outline form, with only the principle of development and the access to the site for full approval at that stage, and matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for later detailed approval. At the Inquiry, the appellants asked that the matter of access should also be reserved. Sufficient information was provided with the application documents to indicate the area where an access to the site would be formed. I am satisfied that no other party’s interests would be prejudiced by this change and have considered the appeal proposal on the basis that all matters are now reserved.

4. The planning application acknowledged the potential need for a planning obligation under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, but no agreement was concluded before the application was refused. Negotiations with the Council continued after submission of the appeal, and a draft obligation, in the form of a unilateral undertaking (‘UU’) by the landowners, was submitted

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2205644

before the Inquiry opened. Negotiations carried on during the course of the Inquiry, and by the close of the event a copy was provided of a completed obligation framed in terms acceptable to the Council. The UU sets out covenants in respect of the provision and management of affordable housing on the site, the payment of financial contributions towards the provision of off- site open space, play space, traffic calming measures and footpath improvements, and the submission and implementation of a travel plan. The merits of the obligation are considered later in this decision.

5. A signed Statement of Common Ground (‘SoCG’) was submitted at the opening of the Inquiry. This records the main parties’ agreement on the weight to be afforded to the adopted and emerging development plan, and the approach to decision making set out by the Government guidance of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’), as well as identifying a range of topics which the parties felt could be satisfactorily resolved by the use of planning conditions or obligations. A further SoCG was agreed towards the end of the Inquiry in respect of specific points on housing land supply.

6. Following the close of the Inquiry, new planning practice guidance was published by the Government to support NPPF policy, and much former guidance was cancelled. Both main parties made written submissions on the implications for the appeal of the practice guidance, and these have been taken into account in the determination of the appeal.

Appeal proposal

7. The appeal site lies on rising ground at the northern edge of the built-up area of Glossop. It comprises 5.75 ha of agricultural land, currently used for grazing and hay production and laid out as three fields around an adjoining small reservoir. The site has highway frontage to North Road and is separated from the suburban-type houses to the south by a public footpath, which carries on through a small group of older houses at the south-east corner of the site. There are open fields and sports pitches to the north, and a small commercial unit and a nursery to the east.

8. Permission is sought to develop the site with up to 150 houses, 30% of which (45 units) would be provided as affordable housing. A single point of access would be taken mid-way along the North Road frontage. The Design and Access Statement (‘DAS’) submitted with the application included an illustrative masterplan which suggests a potential layout for the development. This would comprise a main spine road through the site with cul-de-sac roads branching off to each side, all lined by a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced houses. Existing trees and hedges would be retained and supplemented, and balancing ponds formed in the low south-western corner of the site adjoining North Road.

Main Issues

9. The planning application was refused for three reasons. The first reason stemmed from an objection by the Environment Agency (‘EA’) that flood risk from the reservoir had not been adequately assessed. The appellants later commissioned a survey of the reservoir’s condition, which showed it to be sound. Following notification by the EA that its concern on this issue had been met and that other aspects relating to flood risk and drainage could be

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2205644

addressed by planning conditions, the Council confirmed that it would not seek to pursue this issue in the appeal.

10. The second reason related to the application’s failure to secure provision for affordable housing. The main SoCG records the parties’ agreement that the matter of affordable housing should be resolved by the submission of a planning obligation. The Council confirmed at the Inquiry that the finally completed UU had resolved its outstanding objection on the timing of provision of the affordable units, and that it no longer opposed the development on this ground. The final UU also satisfied the Council’s requirements on the amounts of payments for open space and play provision.

11. The remaining matter at issue related to the potential loss of biodiversity. It was agreed at the Inquiry that the main issue in the appeal is:

Whether, in the absence of a five year supply of deliverable housing land, the proposal would amount to a sustainable form of development in accordance with national and local policy, having particular regard to the effect on biodiversity.

12. Some local residents and other interested parties maintain an objection on the sustainability of the site in terms of its location and accessibility.

Reasons

Policy context

13. For the purposes of this appeal, the development plan comprises the saved policies of the High Peak Local Plan (‘LP’) adopted in 2005. Work is quite well advanced on the preparation of a new-style Local Plan, with consultation on Preferred Options having taken place in February 2013, and an additional round of consultation that concluded immediately before the Inquiry.

14. The appeal site forms part of a somewhat larger proposed housing allocation (site G6) in the Preferred Options document. The Council has explained that the suggested capacity of 60 dwellings shown in that document was a reduction from 264 units in the first 2012 Options consultation, and envisaged development of only part of the site. The Additional Consultation of December 2013 notes the site allocation as unchanged, although the capacity now indicated is 150. The proposed allocation is subject to a number of objections. In view of the uncertainty of the final form of the new Local Plan little weight can be given to the emerging draft at this stage. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the Council continues to promote the allocation, while at the same time resisting the current proposal.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2205644

cannot be considered as up to date 1. The restriction imposed by the above policies on the location of new housing is relevant to the supply of housing and the policies must now be regarded as out of date.

18. In this instance, the Council considers that the site would be sustainable in terms of its location. Conflict with LP Policies OC1 and H1 was not cited in the reasons for refusal. The Council’s concern remains that the proposal would not be sustainable because of the impact on biodiversity.

Housing land supply

19. The appellants have sought to present the housing requirement and housing land supply position within the borough as main issues in the appeal. But although these matters are not agreed between the parties, the decision on the appeal does not turn on the nature or extent of the disagreement.

20. In applying the presumption in favour of sustainable development, paragraph 14 of the NPPF sets out the relative weight to be given in decision making to harm and benefits when relevant development plan policies are out of date. As outlined above, in the case of housing supply, relevant policies become out of date when a 5 year supply can no longer be shown.

22. That requirement, for 300 dwellings per annum (‘dpa’), emanated from the now revoked Regional Strategy, which had provided the most recent fully tested and adopted requirement. However, the NPPF’s guidance that the housing requirement should be based on the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing has since been clarified by the High Court 3 and Court of Appeal 4 judgements in the Hunston case. The Council now accepts that the starting point for estimating its housing requirement should be the most recent objective assessment of need. The Additional Consultation on the emerging Local Plan had been informed by a Technical Note, which concluded that an objective assessment indicated a range of 416-455 dpa. By the close of the Inquiry the Council had updated this to 420-470 dpa 5.

1 NPPF para 49 2 NPPF para 14 3 Hunston Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and St Albans City and District Council [2013] EWHC 2678 (Admin) 4 City and District Council of St Albans v The Queen (oao) Hunston Properties Limited, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and anr [2013] EWCA Civ 1610 5 Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners: High Peak Borough Council Objective Assessment of Housing Need February 2014 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2205644

23. The Court of Appeal Hunston judgement states that until such time as the Local Plan process has adopted a constrained housing figure, the full objectively assessed need should form the basis of the housing requirement 6. Given the imminent submission and examination of the new Local Plan, I consider that to be the appropriate forum in which the correct requirement should be established. The Hunston judgement acknowledges the difficulty in attempting to shadow the Local Plan process in a S78 appeal such as this.

24. In response to the full objective assessment, the Additional Consultation proposes a constrained figure of 360 dpa, to reflect environmental factors including the extent the Green Belt, landscape character and infrastructure. The Council argued at the Inquiry that this figure could now be accepted as an appropriate requirement. The Hunston judgement goes on to allow that a decision on a S78 appeal could give weight to constraining factors, such as Green Belt 7. This is now reflected in the planning practice guidance, which advises that the weight to be given to full assessments of need should take into account the fact they have not yet been tested or moderated against relevant constraints 8.

25. Therefore, in all cases the full objectively assessed need may have to be qualified in the light of local constraints to produce the eventual requirement. But in the present case there was insufficient evidence before the Inquiry to allow a fully informed assessment that would allow weight to be given at this stage to the Council’s proposed constrained figure. However, the resulting lack of certainty is not critical to the outcome of the appeal.

27. The lack of a 5 year supply is common ground between the parties. The appellants’ case is primarily directed towards attributing weight to the shortfall, by questioning both the appropriate requirement and the Council’s assessment of the deliverable supply. Neither the NPPF nor the planning practice guidance advises on any scale of weight to be applied in relation to the extent of any shortfall below the 5 year supply. The Hunston Court of Appeal judgement considered that scale of shortfall could be material in the assessment of ‘very special circumstances’ as exceptional support for development in a Green Belt 9, but the wider applicability of this has yet to be tested.

28. In a recent appeal decision, the Secretary of State has accepted that where absence of a 5 year supply was common ground, there was no need to reach a definitive conclusion on the scale of the shortfall10 . In my view, that is also the correct approach in the present case.

6 Paragraph 26 7 Paras 29-30 8 PPG Paragraph Ref ID 3-030-20140306 9 Para 28 10 Appeal Ref APP/B3410/A/13/2193657: para 8 of Secretary of State’s letter www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2205644

29. The circumstances are very different from cases, such as the recent Offenham appeal 11 referred to by the appellants, where the Inspector had to reach a judgement on the disputed existence of a 5 year supply. The appellants also referred at the Inquiry to a number of appeal decisions where the Secretary of State or inspectors had attached significant weight to a shortfall, but none of these related to variation in weight due to the establishment of a greater or lesser shortfall.

Biodiversity

32. The third reason for refusal of the planning application states that the proposal would result in a net loss of biodiversity, and would not protect the most valuable grassland on the site or compensate adequately for features to be lost. The proposal is considered to be unsustainable in ecological terms and contrary to saved LP Policy OC8 and to the guidance of the NPPF.

33. LP Policy OC8 seeks to protect sites of importance for nature conservation, of international, national and local significance. In this respect it can be seen as consistent with NPPF policy guidance. At the local scale, the LP policy refers to sites on the Derbyshire Wildlife Register. The Council accepted at the Inquiry that, as the appeal site is not included on the Register as a Local Wildlife Site (‘LWS’), the policy does not strictly apply in this instance.

34. However, evidence was given on behalf of the Council by the Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (‘DWT’) that the site is of biodiversity value, and that the westernmost field adjoining North Road would now meet the criteria for designation as a LWS.

35. This field was first surveyed in 2001 in preparation for the Peak District Biodiversity Action Plan (‘PDBAP’), when it was identified as a potential LWS (‘pLWS’) as species-rich semi-natural grassland. More recently, a series of surveys has been carried out between late 2012 and late 2013 in connection with the planning application now under appeal and a successor application 12 , on behalf both of the appellants and of DWT.

36. The expert evidence presented to the Inquiry did not reach consensus on the value of the site or on the merits of the different surveys, each of which relies to a greater or lesser degree on a subjective assessment of abundance of the target species. DWT’s conclusion that the field would now meet the

11 Appeal Ref APP/H1840/A/13/2203924 12 Application Ref HPK/2013/0648 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2205644

designation criteria is based on an aggregated assessment of the species recorded in the 2001 and 2013 surveys. The appellants dispute reliance on the original survey and point to the exceptionally thorough approach of their own second survey.

37. In the absence of expert agreement, it is difficult to reach a firm conclusion on the precise quality of the pLWS. However, the balance of the evidence suggests that the field is at or very close to the LWS standard and that a further survey carried out under optimum seasonal and cropping conditions could confirm its merit.

38. The field also derives status through its identification by the PDBAP as a priority habitat in the Lowland Meadow category, informed by the original 2001 survey. The BAP acknowledges that a large proportion of hay meadows in the area have been semi-improved to some degree, so that the field is not ruled out on this ground. The BAP gives high priority to maintaining the condition of protected sites through appropriate management and to safeguarding unprotected sites through agri-environment agreements, regulatory mechanisms and ownership. The DWT argues that restoration of the remaining parts of the appeal site, which are also in use as hay meadows, would be consistent with BAP targets for the Dark Peak area and would reflect national advice 13 on the importance of buffering and extending known sites and enhancing connectivity.

39. The conservation and enhancement of the natural environment is a core principle of the NPPF, which seeks a level of protection for wildlife sites commensurate with their status and with appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution they make to wider ecological networks 14 . Planning policies should promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats and ecological networks 15 . In determining planning applications, permission should be refused if significant harm resulting from development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for 16 .

40. For the reasons set out above, I consider that the pLWS field is of local importance in NPPF terms and that the remainder of the site could offer an opportunity for restoration in accordance with the BAP. Total loss of the site’s ecological value as a result of development would be significantly harmful.

41. The principal mitigation now offered by the appellants would involve the retention of some 50-60% of the pLWS and of a smaller area of grassland to the north-eastern edge of the site, with their future management to be governed by a Biodiversity Management Plan (‘BMP’) secured by a planning condition. The BMP would also encompass other measures such as the maintenance of habitat around existing and proposed water features, and of existing and extensive new hedgerow planting.

42. It is clear that appropriate management is key to sustaining the value of meadow habitat. The relative continuity of species identified by the DWT shows that the pLWS has benefitted from a traditional management regime sympathetic to its biodiversity interest. The appellants point out that there is

13 Lawton et al: Making Space for Nature 2010 14 NPPF para 113 15 NPPF para 117 16 NPPF para 118 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2205644

no guarantee that the current regime would carry on in the future, but would be subject to the preferences of the owner and/or agricultural tenant. The site’s current interest would therefore be vulnerable either to a change in regime, such as by ‘improvement’ or by neglect. This would be true even if the site were to be formally designated as a LWS.

43. Reference is made to an appeal decision17 relating to a field in another part of the county, where the Inspector accepted the owner’s right to alter the management of the land, to the detriment of its ecological interest. The site in that case had also been considered by the DWT to be eligible for LWS designation. The important difference from the present case is that the value of the site was lost before the appeal proposal was brought forward, which is not the situation here.

44. Nevertheless, the case does illustrate how easy it is for management regimes to be radically altered and biodiversity value lost. While there is no evidence that the current site’s value is under active threat, that could change at any time. The site has not been brought into any agri-environment management scheme in the years since it was first identified and there is no evidence of any active steps in that direction.

45. The proposed BMP would secure positive management of a significant portion of the pLWS. The draft scheme suggests that this should include both cutting and grazing, in accordance with good practice for lowland meadow habitat. The retained area of the field would continue to adjoin the LWS on the opposite side of North Road and would facilitate connection to the reservoir to the east. This would provide a substantial degree of mitigation for the harmful effect of development. The retention of the smaller area of grass to the north-east, the strengthening of hedgerows and the formation of water features would also be positive aspects, but without contributing greatly to the primary interest of the site.

46. These positive aspects would be offset by the loss of part of the site, including areas in the lower part of the field with a better spread of target species. The potential for enhanced management of the other fields would be lost. As a result, there would be residual harm after mitigation, but it would not be so significant as to warrant rejection of the proposal in accordance with NPPF paragraph 118.

Other matters

47. As outlined above, saved LP policies seeking to restrict development to the defined built-up area of the town must now be seen as out-of-date. The site’s location is not therefore unacceptable in principle, and there is no indication that its development would significantly reduce existing gaps between Glossop, Hadfield and Padfield, as feared by some residents.

48. Being beyond the current edge of the town, it is inevitable that the site will be somewhat further from facilities and services within the built-up area than existing residential areas. However, the Council regards this as a sustainable location in accessibility terms.

49. The submitted Transport Assessment (‘TA’) shows that some facilities, such as schools, open space and leisure provision, are within relatively close walking

17 Appeal Ref APP/R1038/A/13/2192164 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2205644

distance. This should help to reduce car usage for short journeys. The town centre lies within a 2000m zone, so that the distance to the railway station would therefore be within the maximum recommended for commuting journeys on foot. I acknowledge that the TA appears not to take explicit account of the gradients involved in walking from the town centre, but even allowing for the relatively stiff climb to the site, the 17-20 minute duration quoted by residents and objectors would not place the site beyond acceptable limits for this purpose, and should not greatly encourage additional car journeys.

52. A Landscape Impact Assessment (‘LIA’) commissioned by the Council has assessed all of the potential site allocations in the merging Local Plan. The LIA notes the prominence of the elevated position of site G6, particularly in views from the National Park to the south. The study does not rule out development of the site, but recommends that detailed and extensive landscape masterplanning would be required to address potential impacts.

53. The indicative masterplan submitted in support of the appeal application has already been superseded by the revised proposal to retain part of the western field. However, that would not invalidate the conclusion of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (‘LVIA’) that accompanied the application, which was that the proposal could provide a strong landscape framework at the edge of the built-up area.

54. It is important to note that the appeal site does not include the highest, most prominent field of allocation G6. Subject to the further detailed masterplanning recommended by the LIA, which could be secured at the reserved matters stage, the landscape impacts of the proposal could be satisfactorily mitigated. This would include the effect on long views from the National Park and closer range views from North Road to the north and from Castle Hill to the north west. The proposal would be contained within existing slopes and could, with sufficient planting to the perimeter and core of the site, be designed to appear as a relatively organic extension of the existing built-up area. There should be no adverse effect on the setting of Howard Park.

Planning obligation

55. The UU completed by the landowners allows for 30% of the dwellings on the site to be provided as affordable housing, for the timing of their provision and transfer to a registered provider, and for submission of a scheme to allow approval of numbers, type and location of the affordable units and the control of their future occupation. As outlined above, the Council confirmed at the Inquiry that it was satisfied that these provisions accorded with adopted policy.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2205644

56. Payments would also be made to the Council towards the development and maintenance of open space and play provision at the nearby Howard Park. Payments would be made to Derbyshire County Council as highway authority for the implementation of traffic calming on North Road and the extension of the 30mph speed limit to encompass the site access point. There would also be a commitment to submit a Travel Plan for approval to the County Council, and a payment towards monitoring costs.

57. I am satisfied that each of these covenants would comply with the tests set out in the NPPF and with the advice of the planning practice guidance. The obligation can be fully taken into account in support of the appeal proposal.

Balance of considerations

58. The NPPF seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing. There is no dispute that the Council’s 5 year supply is lacking. The emerging evidence on the objective assessment of housing need shows that the scale of the shortfall is likely to be greater than previously assessed. The contribution to meeting the considerable shortfall in supply lends substantial weight in support of the proposal.

59. The provision of 45 units of affordable housing would also help to address an identified need, and is a consideration of positive weight, even if the level of proposed provision would not exceed the requirements of development plan policy.

60. The Council argues that the level of both market and affordable housing provision would not be at a strategic level that would significantly improve the overall housing provision in the area. But the scale of proposed development compares well with other sites in the claimed supply, few of which exceed 150 units. The provision would contribute to the social dimension of sustainable development.

61. The economic dimension would be illustrated by the employment generated during construction, by the addition to the local economy of the spending power of future residents and by the relatively modest financial gains of the New Homes Bonus. These economic factors add moderate weight in support of the proposal.

62. The site’s location at the edge of the built-up area, within reach of a good rail connection, would allow many trips to be made by sustainable modes, even though topography and access to convenience shopping would be less than ideal. The effects on landscape quality could be adequately mitigated by carefully considered design at the reserved matters stage. The major environmental harm through loss of biodiversity of the site would be partly mitigated by the proposal to bring a significant portion of the pLWS into active management.

63. On balance, any environmental harm remaining after mitigation would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of development. In accordance with NPPF guidance, the proposal must be regarded as sustainable development to which the presumption in favour of development applies.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2205644

Conditions

64. A draft schedule of conditions discussed by the two main parties to the appeal was submitted during the Inquiry and an agreed schedule later provided while the Inquiry stood adjourned. This forms the basis of the schedule annexed to this decision. Subject to some amendment in the interests of precision and enforceability, I consider that the undisputed conditions would all be reasonable and necessary and would comply with the requirements of the NPPF and the planning practice guidance.

65. In addition to standard conditions on the submission of reserved matters and the commencement of development, specific conditions are required to define the final form of development in order to ensure that the character and appearance of the area are not harmed. These include a limit on the number of units and a layout to include retention of part of the pLWS, the approval of the landscape masterplan recommended by the LIA, and a scheme for the protection of existing trees.

66. The group of conditions on Amenity are needed to protect living conditions of nearby residents and the safety of highways near the site during construction, including the submission and approval of a Construction Method Statement. The living conditions of future residents are to be protected by approval of measures to control the effect of traffic noise. The condition on Flooding and Drainage is needed to minimise flood risk and to ensure the site is properly drained by sustainable methods and that on Contamination is required to ensure the health and safety of future users of the site.

67. The set of conditions on Biodiversity, as outlined above, are necessary to ensure mitigation of the effects on the ecological interest of the site and to ensure a programme of enhancement measures. The conditions on Access and Highways are needed in the interests of highway safety and to promote a choice of sustainable modes of travel.

68. Two conditions are disputed by the parties. The arrangements for archaeological investigation and analysis are required to ensure that the site’s heritage value is preserved. The Council’s recommended form provides the necessary level of precision. The Renewable Energy Statement submitted with the application sets out a range of measures in the design and construction of the scheme to achieve a minimum 10% reduction in energy consumption and Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 or better. The NPPF strongly supports local initiatives to move towards a low carbon future. In the absence of an adopted development plan policy to reflect this, the Council’s proposed condition seeking achievement of a higher Code level would not be justified.

Conclusion

69. For the reasons set out above, and having taken careful account of the submissions made in writing and at the Inquiry and of the submitted planning obligation, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and outline planning permission granted subject to conditions. Brendan Lyons

INSPECTOR

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2205644

Annex

Appeal Ref: APP/H1033/A/13/2205644 Land off North Road, Glossop, Derbyshire SK13 7AX

Schedule of conditions Nos.1-22

1. Details of the access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping (hereinafter called ‘the reserved matters’) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development is commenced and the development shall be carried out as approved.

2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission.

3. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

4. The development hereby permitted shall comprise no more than 150 dwellings.

5. The reserved matters application for layout shall include a plan setting out details of the phasing of development, proposed land uses, and proposed Biodiversity Management areas in accordance with the Ecology Plan Fig 3 5376-E-03 Rev C prepared by FPCR. In particular, the layout shall provide for the retention and enhancement of the potential Local Wildlife Site as identified on the plan. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved layout and phasing scheme.

6. The reserved matters application for landscaping shall include a detailed Landscape Masterplan setting out details of the landscape strategy for the site, including any loss of existing vegetation. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Masterplan.

7. No development or other operations shall commence until a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement to include a scheme for the retention and protection of trees and hedges on or adjacent to the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statement.

Archaeology

8. No development shall take place until a written scheme of archaeological investigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and until any pre-start element has been completed in accordance with the approved scheme. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions and:

a) The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording;

b) The programme for post-investigation assessment;

c) Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording;

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 12 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2205644

d) Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation;

e) Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation;

f) Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works.

Amenity

9. No building operations shall take place (other than site clearance), until space has been provided within the site curtilage for storage of plant and materials, site accommodation, loading and unloading of goods vehicles, parking and manoeuvring of site operatives’ and visitors’ vehicles, laid out and constructed in accordance with detailed designs that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The space shall be maintained throughout the contract period in accordance with the approved details, free from any impediment to its designated use.

10.No development shall take place until a mitigation scheme for protecting the proposed dwellings from traffic noise has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the approved works to that dwelling have been completed in accordance with the approved details.

11.No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All construction work shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Construction Method Statement, which shall include the following details:

a) The method and duration of any pile driving operations (expected starting date and completion date);

b) The hours of work, which shall not exceed the following:

• Pile driving shall not take place outside 09:00 to 16:00 hours Mondays to Fridays, nor at any time on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays.

c) The arrangements for prior notification to the occupiers of potentially affected properties.

d) The responsible person (e.g. site manager / office) who could be contacted in the event of complaint.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 13 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2205644

f) Details of wheel washing facilities. All construction vehicles shall have their wheels cleaned before leaving the site.

g) Erection and maintenance of security hoarding and fencing.

h) A scheme for recycling/disposal of waste resulting from the construction works.

Flooding and Drainage

12.No development shall take place until a scheme to limit the surface water run-off generated by the development hereby permitted to existing greenfield rates, with attenuation, up to a 1 in 100 year event, and to manage the risk of flooding from over ground flow has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of attenuation areas and how the attenuation ponds will be designed to hold areas of permanent water. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme.

Contamination

13.No development shall take place until:

a) a site investigation has been designed for the site using the information obtained from the desktop investigation previously submitted in respect of contamination. This shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the investigation being carried out on the site; and

b) the site investigation and associated risk assessment have been undertaken in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and

c) a method statement and remediation strategy, based on the information obtained from b) above, including a programme of works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved remediation strategy.

Biodiversity

14.No development or other operations, including site clearance and site preparation, shall take place until a Biodiversity Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Biodiversity Management Plan shall be based on the submitted Outline Biodiversity Management Plan by FPCR (14 January 2014) and shall include provisions for ecological retention, enhancement and future maintenance and management, and for the fencing off of the remaining potential Local Wildlife Site sufficient to prevent access to the land by members of the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 14 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2205644

public. The approved Biodiversity Management Plan shall be implemented in full and subsequently maintained in accordance with the approved details.

15.No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision of a 3.5m wide buffer zone to each side of the watercourse across the site, excluding provision for a road crossing and associated footways, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The buffer zone shall be kept free from development, including lighting, domestic gardens and formal landscaping. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

16.No development shall take place until a scheme of measures for the design of the access road to reduce its impact on the common toad has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

17.No development shall take place until a scheme of proposals for the incorporation of features suitable for use by breeding birds (including swifts and house sparrows) and roosting bats, and including a timetable for implementation, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timetable and retained thereafter.

18.No development or other operations shall take place unless within one month prior to commencement an assessment of the trees on the site for bat roosts has been undertaken by a licensed bat ecologist and a report setting out any necessary mitigation plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any approved mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plan and retained thereafter.

19.No tree/shrub clearance work shall be carried out between 1 March and 31 August inclusive in any year, unless the site has been surveyed in advance for breeding birds and a scheme to protect breeding birds has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Access and highways

20.The reserved matters application for access shall include full details of access to and within the site, including: the new junction onto North Road; roads and footways within the site; pedestrian/cycle access points/links to the existing highway network; new footway to North Road; the highway boundary to the site. The access works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

21.No development shall take place until full specification details (including construction, layout, surfacing and drainage) of the vehicular accesses, driveways, parking spaces and turning areas to serve the dwellings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of each dwelling and thereafter the turning area and car parking spaces shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 15 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2205644

22.No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until a full Travel Plan, based on the submitted Travel Plan Framework by Croft Transport solutions (December 2012) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Travel Plan shall include objectives, targets, mechanisms and measures to achieve the targets, implementation timescales, provisions for monitoring, and arrangements for a travel plan co- ordinator, who shall be in place until 5 years after completion of the final phase of development. The measures set out in the approved plan and any approved modifications shall be implemented in full thereafter. The approved plan shall be audited and updated and submitted for the approval of the local planning authority at intervals no longer than 18 months, starting from the date of first approval.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 16 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2205644

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Thea Osmund-Smith of Counsel Instructed by Nicola de Bruin, Solicitor, High Peak Borough Council She called: Teresa Hughes Local Wildlife Sites Officer, BSc(Hons) MSc MCIEEM Derbyshire Wildlife Trust Andrew Gerald Massie Partner, BSc(Hons) MRICS IRRV MCIArb Keppie Massie Chartered Surveyors Elizabeth Pleasant Planning Officer, BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI High Peak Borough Council

FOR THE APPELLANT:

John Barrett of Counsel Instructed by Timothy Dean, Gladman Developments Limited He called: Marc Hourigan Director, BA BPL MRTPI Hourigan Connolly Chartered Town Planners Nick Law Senior Ecologist, MSc FPCR Environment and Design Ltd Kate Hollins Chartered Environmentalist, BA MSc CMIEEM CEnv FPCR Environment and Design Ltd Timothy Dean Planning and Development Manager, MA DipTPS MRTPI Gladman Developments Limited

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Andrew Wood Planning Officer, Friends of the Peak District Elizabeth Strek Local resident John Harkinson Local resident Helen Larder Local resident Helen Conway Local resident Joanna Hilton Local resident Anne Hogg Local resident Gerard Riley Local resident Councillor Jean Wharmby Member, High Peak Borough Council Hilary Morgan Local resident

DOCUMENTS

1 Statement of Common Ground 2 Opening on behalf of the Appellants 3 Opening Statement on behalf of High Peak Borough Council 4 Statement by Andrew Wood on behalf of Friends of the Peak District 5 Diagrams showing critique of FPCR survey method 6 Extract from Peak District Biodiversity Action Plan

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 17 Appeal Decision APP/H1033/A/13/2205644

7 Derbyshire Wildlife Trust response to consultation on application HPK/2013/0648- Letter dated 9 January 2014 8 Appeal decision Ref APP/R1038/A/13/2192164 9 Draft schedule of conditions 10 Appeal decision Ref APP/H1840/A/13/2203924 11 E-mails dated 11 February 2014: BNP Paribas –AG Massie 12 E-mail dated 6 February 2014: Lambert Smith Hampton –E Pleasant 13 Development Control Committee reports 17 February 2014 14 Notice of Refusal of application ref HPK/2012/0537 15 Howard Park Conservation Area plan and entry on list of Historic Parks and Gardens 16 Gov.UK webpage: definition of a Dwelling 17 Addendum Statement of Common Ground 18 Application for Costs on behalf of the Appellants 19 Revised schedule of conditions 20 Response to Appellants’ Costs Application 21 Statement by Nicola de Bruin, Solicitor 22 Letter of notification of Inquiry resumption and list of those notified 23 Statement by Elizabeth Strek 24 Completed Unilateral Undertaking 25 Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners: High Peak Borough Council Objective Assessment of Housing Need February 2014 26 Birch Homes Limited Plan Ref 221/02: Waterswallows development 27 Letter of objection dated 18 February 2014: John and Julie Harkinson 28 Note of Objection: Helen Larder 29 Closing Statement on behalf of High Peak Borough Council 30 Closing on behalf of the Appellants 31 Response to the LPA Case in respect of the Costs Application 32 Letter dated 19 March 2014: Appellants’ comments on National Planning Practice Guidance 33 Council comments on National Planning Practice Guidance

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 18

APPENDIX 9 Appendix 7: Sustainability Appraisal of Potential Housing Sites

The sites which were available for development with the highest sustainability scores have been allocated as Housing Sites and are shown in bold.

Chapel Vision Housing Site Scoping SA scores judged by Chapel Vision Housing WG, according to HPBC Methodology for SA Scoping Site Allocations DPD HS or Approx % of Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Total Survey Site number of Notes maximum Ranking SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 SA6 SA7 SA8 SA9 SA10 SA11 SA12 score Ref houses * available HS1 Surplus land at Federal Mogul 164 Planning permission granted 6 4 1 2 4 4 6 6 4 4 6 2 49 96% 1 FR Somersets yard off Long Lane B2 30 Owners do not want to move 0 4 1 2 2 4 6 6 4 4 6 2 41 80% 3= / Manchester Road B3 Old Coal Yard on Midland Road 42 Owners do not want to move 0 4 1 2 2 4 6 6 4 4 6 2 41 80% 3= Old Dorma Factory site at HS2 182 Planning permission granted 6 4 1 2 4 4 6 3 2 4 6 2 44 86% 2 Whitehough Beech Lane (infill site at Dove B5(a) 39 Actually a greenfield site 3 2 1 2 0 2 0 6 2 4 6 2 30 59% 11= Holes) Behind Alexander Road (infill site B5(b) 41 No access to road system 3 2 1 2 2 4 3 6 2 4 6 2 37 73% 6 at Dove Holes) Fields behing Crossings and G1 107 Planning permission granted 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 6 4 4 6 2 30 59% 11= Manchester Road Barratts produced draft plans in G2 Fields behind Chapel High School 239 341200064462 32 63% 9= 2010 Field 1 and 2 (between Long HS5 66 Planning permission granted 3 4 1 2 0 2 0 6 4 4 6 2 34 67% 8 Lane and railway) Field 3 and 4 (between Long G3(d) 105 Planning application submitted 3 4 1 2 0 0 0 6 2 4 6 2 30 59% 11= Lane and Station Road) Land off Homestead Way & Considered not developable by G4 69 341200064462 32 63% 9= Thornell Close High Peak Borough Council Field by Manchester Road, on G5(a) 69 341000062462 28 55% 14= Chapel side of Whitestones Whitestones garden / land, by G5(b) 33 Plans refused in 2009 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 6 2 4 6 2 28 55% 14= Manchester Road Field between A6 Dove Holes G6a 66 321200032461 24 47% 18 and railway line. Land off Beelow Close, Dove G6b 29 321000062462 26 51% 17 Holes HS3 Pickford Meadow 30 340222064462 35 69% 7 Factory and bumgalow, Park HS4 12 041224664462 41 80% 3= Road

* The number of homes is assumed at 30 per hectare unless a planning application or plan shows otherwise.

Housing Appendix 8: Chapel Vision Sustainability Appraisal of Housing Sites – Criteria for Assessment

SA Importance of Objective Does the site …? Positive/Negative impact objective Score Number High/Medium/Low 1 Support economic Positive: The site provides employment. [2 points] development and new Neutral: Employment is neither provided nor lost [1 point]. High: score is trebled. employment Negative: There is a loss of land that currently contributes to opportunities? employment. [0 points] 2 Contribute to support for Positive: The site is within 15 minutes walk of a centre and will vibrant market town and contribute to the vitality of the centre. [2 points] Medium: score is large settlement centres? Neutral: The site is within a 15 minute bus or car journey of a doubled. centre and will have limited positive impact on the vitality of the centre. [1 point] Negative: The site is over 15 minutes travel by bus or car from a settlement centre and is likely to detract from maintaining vibrant centres. [0 points] 3 Maintain air quality and Positive: No positive impacts scored. help to minimise noise Neutral: The site is within or adjacent to settlement and in an area Low: score is not and light pollution? without high levels of existing traffic congestion. [1 point] changed. Negative: The site is remote from a settlement centre and/or in an area of existing high traffic congestion where development is likely to make a disproportionate contribution to air, noise and light pollution. [0 points] 4 Protect and enhance Positive: The site is over 400m away from an international, favourable conditions on national or locally designated site, but its development will Medium: score is SSSIs, SPAs, SACs and enable improvements to be made to the condition of a doubled. other designated wildlife designated site. [2 points] sites? Neutral: Development of the site is likely to make neither a positive nor a negative impact on the condition of an international, national, or locally designated wildlife site. [1 point] Negative: The site is designated, or is within 100m of a local wildlife site or within 400m of a nationally or internationally designated site where significant impacts could result. [0 points]

SA Importance of Objective Does the site …? Positive/Negative impact objective Score Number High/Medium/Low 5 Protect and enhance Positive: The site has neither nature conservation biodiversity, geodiversity and designations nor known features of high conservation Medium: score is support the development of value but is over 8ha in size, enabling development to doubled. linked green spaces? deliver nature conservation enhancement. [2 points] Neutral: The site has neither nature conservation designations nor known features of high conservation value (although there may be trees, hedges or small ponds) and development will not deliver biodiversity enhancement. [1 point] Negative: There are habitats within the site that may make a significant local contribution to biodiversity and/or there is potential for protected species or species of conservation importance to be present. [0 points] 6 Conserve and enhance town and Positive: The site is within settlement and will make a village-scape quality and positive contribution to the existing community [2 Medium: score is heritage assets along with their points] doubled. settings? Neutral: The site is adjacent to settlement and its development will have neither a positive nor negative impact on the existing quality of the built environment [1 point] Negative: The site involves the loss of buildings or gardens designated as having historic interest, or would have an adverse impact on their setting; and/or development risks an adverse impact on a conservation area or its setting. [0 points] 7 Protect and enhance the Positive: The site is previously developed land [2 points] character and appearance of the Neutral: The site is not previously developed, but it is within High: score is trebled. landscape and other natural settlement [1 point] assets? Negative: The site is greenfield, in the countryside and risks an adverse impact on landscape character or a natural asset (eg pond, river, reservoir, woodland) [0 points]

SA Importance of Objective Does the site …? Positive/Negative impact objective Score Number High/Medium/Low 8 Help to minimise the risk of Positive: The site is in flood zone 1 and there are no recorded flooding? incidents of surface water sewer flooding on site, or High: score is trebled. within 100m of the site [2 points] Neutral: The site is in flood zone 1 but there are incidents of surface water sewer flooding on site, or within 100m of the site [1 point] Negative: The site is partially or wholly in flood zone 2 or flood zone 3 [0 points] 9 Help to reduce the number of Positive: The site is within 10 minutes walk of a town centre, journeys made by car? and 5 minutes walk from a bus stop or a train station Medium: score is [2 points] doubled. Neutral: The site is within 15 minutes walk of a settlement, centre and within ten minutes walk of a bus stop or train station [1 point] Negative: The site is more than 15 minutes walk from any centre or bus stop [0 points] 10 Improve access to jobs, services Positive: Several services and facilities can be accessed and facilities? within 20 minutes by bus and/or within a 10 minute Medium: score is walk [2 points] doubled. Neutral: There are limited facilities that can be accessed within 20 minutes by bus and/or within a 10 minute walk [1 point] Negative: There are no services or facilities that can be reached on foot or by a bus journey of 20 minutes or less [0 points] 11 Enable provision of affordable Positive: The site has potential to deliver affordable homes housing [2 points] High: score is trebled. Neutral: No neutral impact scored. Negative: Development economics or other factors mean that the site is unlikely to deliver affordable homes [0 points]

SA Importance of Objective Does the site …? Positive/Negative impact objective Score Number High/Medium/Low 12 Provide opportunities for people Positive: The site is within 5 minutes walk of an area of to participate in cultural, leisure publicly accessible open space and 25 minutes walk Low: score is not and recreational activities from a cultural or leisure facility [2 points] changed. Neutral: The site is within 10 minutes walk of an area of publicly accessible open space and between 15 and 30 minutes by bus or car from other cultural, leisure and recreational activities [1 point] Negative: The site results in a loss of recreational facilities [0 points] TOTAL SCORE (out of 51)

APPENDIX 10 Local Development Scheme 2014

April 2014 Local Development Scheme 2014 Contents

1 Introduction 3 The Local Development Scheme 3 The Local Development Framework 3 Existing Plans and Documents 4 Planning Functions in High Peak 4 2 Transitional Arrangements 6 Saved Local Plan Policies 6 Supplementary Planning Guidance 6 3 The Structure of the LDF 7 The Approach to the LDF 7 LDF Documents 7 Neighbourhood Plans 8 Sustainability Appraisal 8 4 Timescale and Programme 10 5 Profile of Local Development Documents 11 6 Monitoring and Evidence Base 12 7 Risk Management 14 A Map of the High Peak LDF 17 B LDF March 2008 18 C Timetable Chart 19 D Local Development Document Profiles 20 E Existing SPG and related guidance 24 F Saved Local Plan Policies 27 G Glossory of Terms 31

April 2014 Local Development Scheme 2014 1 Introduction

The Local Development Scheme

1.1 The High Peak Local Development Scheme sets out the documents, which the Borough Council will use when exercising its planning functions. The planning policies, which the Council uses to guide planning applications, together with proposals for the development and regeneration of specific areas of land are contained in a variety of Plans, Guidance and Strategies.

1.2 The Local Development Scheme (LDS) explains what each of these documents are, what areas they cover and how they relate to each other. The Scheme also sets out a timetable for the production of new documents over the next three years or so. The Council will measure progress against this published timetable and it will also form part of external assessment of the Council’s planning services. The present LDS concentrates on a three year period starting in July 2013, but will be reviewed again regularly within that period.

1.3 The Local Development Scheme should be the starting point for everyone who has an interest in the planning and regeneration of High Peak. The Scheme sets out:

The Documents to be produced and the linkages between them A chart showing the key points in the preparation of each Document when the community will be involved A series of schedules, one for each document, itemising its purpose, status, coverage, timetable and relationship with other documents Notes on the project management of the documents A tentative list of the documents that will be prepared beyond the 3 year time horizon of the current scheme

Amendments to the Local Development Scheme

1.4 The Local Development Scheme was amended by the Council on 1st July 2013 when it agreed a revised timetable for the production of the Local Plan. In broad terms the amendments to this LDS are aimed at taking account of recent advice from government regarding joint working, having realistic targets for the production of our LDF documents and ensuring that they are based on sound evidence. The amendments also take account of the council’s ability to produce these documents whilst at the same time implementing its planning policies and delivering regeneration projects on the ground. More explanation for the amendments made to the time frames for each of the documents affected by the changes to the LDF is given below.

The Local Development Framework

1.5 The production of a Local Development Scheme is a requirement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and is a key component of a new system of development planning brought in by the Act. This new system of Local Development Frameworks (LDF) replaces the long established network of Structure Plans and Local Plans. The LDF is designed to:

Be anchored in the Community strategy Set a clear and distinctive vision for the area Promote a spatial planning approach Deliver sustainable development

April 2014 3 Local Development Scheme 2014 1 Introduction

1.6 In particular the LDF acknowledges that not all of its objectives can necessarily be met within the planning system and consequently may rely on other mechanisms to deliver its aims.

1.7 The LDF is not a single document but rather a ‘folder’ into which a series of documents are placed. This flexible approach enables some aspects of the Framework to be revised quickly in response to changing circumstances, whilst leaving others to endure for the longer term. The geographical extent of the LDF coverage for High Peak is shown on the map in Appendix A.

1.8 These composite documents (termed the Local Development Documents) have different purposes - some of which are used to guide and others to inform. The main documents involved are:

The Local Plan The Policies Map The Local Development Scheme (this document) The Statement of Community Involvement The Monitoring Report Supplementary Planning Documents

1.9 Of these, the first two documents, which prescribe planning policies and proposals, are termed ‘The Development Plan’ and have a particular legal status in the determination of planning applications. For High Peak the Development Plan currently comprises of:

The adopted High Peak Local Plan (2005) - a number of policies within the Local Plan have been saved under transitional arrangements (see Section 2) and will remain until the adoption of the new LDF documents. The Saved Policies can be viewed in Appendix F. The adopted Derby and Derbyshire Minerals Local Plan (2000) The adopted Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan (2005)

Existing Plans and Documents

1.10 Transitional arrangements apply whilst the new documents of the LDF are being prepared. In particular these mean that the adopted High Peak Local Plan (2005) will continue to play an important role in determining planning policy over the lifetime of the LDS until such time as it is replaced by the new Local Plan and Policies Map. Further information regarding the transitional arrangements is set out in Section 2.

Planning Functions in High Peak

1.11 High Peak Borough Council is the local planning authority for those parts of the Borough, which lie outside the Peak District National Park (see Appendix A). This portion of High Peak represents roughly 25% of the Borough’s land area and about 93% of its population. The Borough Council’s planning functions only cover this limited area and all documents referred to in the Local Development Scheme relate only to areas outside the Peak District National Park.

4 April 2014 Local Development Scheme 2014 1 Introduction

1.12 The National Park Authority is a Planning Authority in its own right and publishes a separate Local Development Scheme. Those parts of High Peak which lie within the boundaries of the Peak District National park are covered by the plans and documents prepared by the National Park Authority. In addition Derbyshire County Council as Waste & Mineral Planning Authority prepares its own Local Development Framework to deal with these issues as well.

April 2014 5 Local Development Scheme 2014 2 Transitional Arrangements

Saved Local Plan Policies

2.1 The High Peak Local Plan (2005) policies were set to expire at the end of March 2008. As the Council does not anticipate having a Local Plan in place until 2015 at the earliest, an application to save a number of policies was made and approved by the Government Office for the East Midlands to cover this interim period. The list of Saved Local Plan Policies can be viewed in Appendix F.

Supplementary Planning Guidance

2.2 The Council has a variety of non-statutory Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) ranging from site-specific development briefs through to Conservation area Appraisals and Design Guidance. Under the 2004 Act SPG is replaced by a formalised system of Supplementary Planning Documents. Similar in scope to SPG, the new SPD is subject to regulation and mandatory public engagement and sustainability appraisal.

2.3 The Council will maintain a proportion of existing SPG linked to saved Local Plan Policies, whilst others will be replaced by new supplementary planning Documents. The details of these documents are set out in Appendix E.

6 April 2014 Local Development Scheme 2014 3 The Structure of the LDF

The Approach to the LDF

3.1 In the first years following commencement of the 2004 Act the Council has essentially relied on the existing ‘saved’ Local Plan policies (adopted March 2005). The rationale for this approach is that the replacement local plan has been prepared reasonably promptly and reflected up to date national advice at that time.

3.2 This allowed the Council to concentrate on the production of SPDs that are designed to expound development plan policy and facilitate its implementation. It was intended that this ‘hands on‘ approach would help the planning process to add value and help deliver sustainable communities.

3.3 In 2008 the Council began work on a Joint Core Strategy with Derbyshire Dales District Council to replace the strategy and policies of the 2005 Local Plan. Progress on this joint strategy ceased in 2012 and in its place the Council began work on a single Local Plan for High Peak, building on the previous work undertaken in partnership with Derbyshire Dales District Council, but to also include site allocations and other proposals. This will be the focus of the Council's LDF work over the next 3 years.

LDF Documents

3.4 The structure of the proposed LDF in July 2013 is shown in Appendix B. This shows the hierarchy of documents and explains which will have the status of development plan documents. During the lifetime of the current Local Development Scheme the Council intends producing or commencing the following Local Development Documents which are described in more detail in Section 6 and Appendix D :

Local Plan

3.5 The new Local Plan is a single planning document which sets out the strategy, policies and site allocations for development across the Borough (excluding the Peak District National Park) over the plan period 2011 to 2031.

3.6 Initial consultation on options for the new Local Plan took place during September/October 2012 and on Preferred Options in February 2013. Consultation on additional changes to the Preferred Options document subsequently took place in December/January 2014.

3.7 The Local Plan will be accompanied by a Policies Map identifying on an Ordnance Survey base the boundaries of policy sites and key policy areas and areas of the Borough with specific designations.

Statement of Community Involvement

3.8 This was one of the first documents to be produced and sets out the standards and processes for engaging the community on the Council’s planning functions. The document details procedures for public involvement within the Local Development Framework as well as setting out standards for development control. The document has been subject to examination and was adopted in May 2006. Subsequent LDD’s will have to conform to it.

April 2014 7 Local Development Scheme 2014 3 The Structure of the LDF

Annual Monitoring Report

3.9 The Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) was introduced in 2004 under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act as part of the replacement of the old Local Plan system with Local Development Frameworks (LDF). The Act made it a legal obligation for all local planning authorities to prepare and submit an AMR to the Secretary of State although Councils are no longer required to submit the AMR.

3.10 The process of monitoring is seen as being fundamental to plan preparation and the concept of plan, monitor and manage. Monitoring helps to establish what is happening now, what may happen in the future and by comparing trends against existing policies and targets, determines what needs to be done. The latest AMR is for 2012/13.

Supplementary Planning Documents

3.11 Since the first LDS became active in March 2005 a number Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) have been adopted. These are as follows:-

Residential Design SPD (Adopted December 2005) Planning Obligations SPD (Adopted December 2005) Landscape Character SPD (Adopted March 2006) Glossop Conservation Area Character Appraisal SPD (Adopted March 2006) Old Glossop Conservation Area Character Appraisal SPD (Adopted March 2006) Statement of Community Involvement (May 2006) Housing Restraint SPD (Adopted October 2006) Station Road Buxton Design Framework SPD (Adopted August 2007) Affordable Housing SPD (Adopted November 2007)

3.12 The Council may produce further SPDs to support the new Local Plan as resources permit.

Neighbourhood Plans

3.13 Neighbourhood Plans are voluntary local planning policy documents that are produced by a local community, usually led by a Town or Parish Council or a Neighbourhood Forum. Once a Neighbourhood Plan is adopted, it will form part of the Development Plan for High Peak.

3.14 Neighbourhood Plans should be compliant with the strategic policies of the Local Plan and the NPPF. In the High Peak there are currently 2 Neighbourhood Plans underway for Chapel-en-le-Frith Parish and Whaley Bridge Parish.

Sustainability Appraisal

3.15 Apart from the SCI all the LDD’s that the Council intends producing will be subject to a statutory sustainability appraisal. This builds in an assessment of the environmental, economic and social impact of policies and proposals as an integral part of plan making. It is an iterative process, informing and shaping the plans and strategies as they are being prepared – rather than being an assessment of a finished document. Sustainability Appraisal satisfies the requirements

8 April 2014 Local Development Scheme 2014 3 The Structure of the LDF

of the European Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, but also broadens the process to address the need to build sustainable communities. A sustainability report will be published along side the main documents at the principal consultation stages.

April 2014 9 Local Development Scheme 2014 4 Timescale and Programme

4.1 The overall programme for the preparation of the Local Development Framework is set out in the Gantt chart in Appendix C. The programme shows that the Council intends to rely on the saved policies of the High Peak Local Plan until the adoption of the Local Plan in 2015.

10 April 2014 Local Development Scheme 2014 5 Profile of Local Development Documents

5.1 Full details of all the proposed new documents are set out in the profiles in Appendix D. These describe the purpose and content of each document, the geographical area they will cover, their linkages to other plans and documents and the resources involved in their production.

5.2 As well as providing a useful summary of each document these profiles will also form the basis of more detailed project plan and programme for their production.

April 2014 11 Local Development Scheme 2014 6 Monitoring and Evidence Base

Evidence Base

6.1 A comprehensive evidence base is an essential component of the Local Development Framework. The Council already holds a significant amount of information and it is proposed to consolidate and expand this data set. In addition the Council already works closely with Derbyshire County Council in the collection of housing and employment land information and it is proposed to continue and where possible elaborate on this joint working. The council has recently initiated joint working on the evidence base for the Core Strategy with Derbyshire Dale DC and the Peak District National Park Authority.

6.2 The Main areas of research and information are set out below:

Study/Research Completion Date Management Housing and Employment Annual In House Completions & Land Supply Monitoring Market Town Health Checks Existing In House Housing Needs Survey 2006 Consultants Peak sub region Retail October 2008 Consultants assessment Wildlife Site Designations Annual Service Level Agreement with DWT Peak sub Region Employment March 2008 Consultants Land Review (ELR) Strategic Flood Risk April 2008 Consultants Assessment Stage One Strategic Flood Risk Commence after results of ELR Consultants Assessment Stage Two and SHLAA Peak sub Region Strategic December 2008 Consultants Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Peak sub Region Open Space December 2008 Consultants Assessment Gypsy and Traveller Study Spring 2008 Consultants/DCC Housing Market Assessment October 2008 Consultants 5 year housing supply Annual In house Green Infrastructure December 2008 In house

12 April 2014 Local Development Scheme 2014 6 Monitoring and Evidence Base

Study/Research Completion Date Management Climate Change and December 2008 Peak District National Park Renewable Energy Capacity Assessment Strategic Housing Market February 2014 Consultants Assessment Update Employment Land Review February 2014 Consultants Update Plan & Site Viability Study February 2014 Consultants Retail Study Update January 2014 Consultants Landscape Impact Assessment January 2014 Consultants Transport Study March 2014 DCC & Consultants

Table 1 Study/Research commissioned for Evidence Base

Monitoring

6.3 Progress in implementing the Local Development Scheme and the operation of the policies of the LDS will be monitored through the Annual Monitoring Report. This will be monitor the year April - March and must be published by the following December. This will also indicate if policies require revision or if new documents need to be prepared.

6.4 The 2005 Local Plan contains monitoring indicators set out in Chapter 13; these will form the basis of future evaluation of the LDF. Housing and employment land is monitored annually to 31 March as part of a County-wide system within Derbyshire. In 2006 the Council implemented a new software system for handling planning applications and related activities. It is intended that system will also assist the wider monitoring of development in the Borough.

April 2014 13 Local Development Scheme 2014 7 Risk Management

7.1 The following risk assessment is taken from the Planning Policy and Design Business Plan.

Project management

Given the dominance of project work within the section, its efficient and effective management is of paramount importance. Good project management is based on the identification and clarification of objectives and outputs from the outset as well as the containment of risks.

Containment: The Council has recently adopted a project management methodology (Simply Projects) that embraces many of the tools and techniques of the more complex Prince II approach. All key staff involved with projects have received the appropriate training in the Simply Projects methodology and have access to MS Project software which allows the better programming of tasks within each project.

Business continuity

The team mainly serves the Council’s aims through their intellectual output. Although certain activities are process driven (e.g. development control consultations) most of the output of the section depends on the knowledge, creativity and motivation of the staff. It is common for individual team members to acquire specialist knowledge of particular fields – such as heritage issues, sustainability issues, affordable housing and retailing issues. As a consequence, the productivity of the team can be seriously impaired when a staff member leaves as their knowledge leaves with them. This factor is exacerbated by the current difficulty in recruiting suitably qualified and experienced staff at Senior Officer grade.

Containment: Responding to staff needs and requests and promoting a professional approach assists staff retention. Vacancies require swift decisions and actions on replacements. The spreading of some skills can be encouraged via a mentoring system and this is being encouraged. However, in reality, some specialisms require several years of training to acquire and mentoring/skill sharing can only partially compensate for this.

New legislation / political priorities

New legislation or new policy pronouncements can require remedial action or unforeseen responses. In the same way political priorities may require a shift in resources to deal with a ‘hot’ issue

Containment: Keeping abreast of trends in policy and legislation helps avoid pitfalls. Flexibility assists in adapting workloads

14 April 2014 Local Development Scheme 2014 7 Risk Management

ICT Failure

Development Plan preparation is dependent on effective ICT systems to handle representations. Failure of these could de-rail the process

Containment: timely liaison with ICT and early specification of bespoke products should reduce risk of system failure

April 2014 15 Local Development Scheme 2014 Appendices

April 2014 16 Local Development Scheme 2014 Appendix A Map of the High Peak LDF

X@TUX@TU `PSFTCDS@`PSFTCDS@`PSFTCDS@

6!39

BS@6U@SBS@6U@SBS@6U@S H6I8C@TU@SH6I8C@TU@SH6I8C@TU@S TPVUCTPVUC 6!, TPVUCTPVUC `PSFTCDS@`PSFTCDS@`PSFTCDS@ 6!,

8 8 8

' ' ' !"#!"# !"#!"# < < <

6!! 6'

0 8 0 0 8 0 0 8 0

6!9 / 0 3/ 0 3 6' 6'

/0 /0 /0 <' <' <' 6!3 8 8 6!3 6!9 6! 6! 6! /' 0 /' 0 /' 0 !"#!"# 6! < < '30 '30 '30 < < 7!3! 6!

Xuvrutu 8uhryHvy /3C8 0/3C8 0/3C8 0 22 2'0 22 2'0 UrhqHvy U 22 2'0 22 2'0 @q 6! 00 800 800 8 8pxh q 8

6339 6! 8C@TCDS@8C@TCDS@ 8C@TCDS@8C@TCDS@ CvtuQrhxCvtuQrhx Gqs6 rhGqs6 rh $!% $!% /3C /3C

!"#!"# 6! 69 Qrhx9v vpQrhx9v vp IhvhyQh xIhvhyQh x 6 6

Picture 1 High Peak LDF Area

April 2014 17 18 April Appendix Local 2014 Development

Local Development Framework

Statement of Community Local Development Scheme Authority Monitoring Report

Involvement (LDS) (AMR) B (SCI) Scheme LDF

Local Plan including land Policies Map allocations and Development control policies

March 2014 Conservation SPD linked to saved SPD including: Planning Development Briefs Character Appraisals policies e.g. parking, Obligations, Affordable Concept Statements (SPG and SPD) crime and design, Housing, Landscape Conservation Area Character, Residential Briefs open space etc. Layout, Housing Restraint

Evidence Base: Employment Land 2008 Studies, Retail Studies, Housing Studies Shaded Documents form the Development Plan

Figure 1 LDF structure Appendix Local Development

TIMETABLE AND KEY MILESTONES FOR LDD PREPARATION

YEAR 2012 2013 2014 2015 C

Month M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A Scheme

High Peak Local Plan (saved) T

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT imetable DOCUMENTS Annual Monitoring Report S S S

Development Plan 2014 Documents Local Plan to include site IP AC RSME IR/ allocations A Policies Map S A Chart KEY I - Issues and options consultation R- Representation Consultation P - Preferred options consultation A - Adoption S -Submission AC - Additional consultation M - Pre examination meeting IR - Inspectors Report E - Examination April

2014 Figure 2 timetable 19 Local Development Scheme 2014 Appendix D Local Development Document Profiles

HIGH PEAK LOCAL PLAN Purpose and Overview What is the subject of the document? A spatial strategy and vision for High Peak and the core policies and site allocations to deliver them What will be the content of the document? It will contain broad strategic policies for the sustainable development of High Peak up to 2031 What is the status of the document? Development Plan Document (DPD) What is the relationship with other LDDs and Having strong links with the Sustainable position in the chain of conformity? Community Strategy, it conforms with the NPPF and other LDDs must conform with the Core Strategy What policies in the Development Plan will the All of the High Peak Local Plan 2005 document replace in whole or in part? What geographical area does it cover? All of High Peak Borough outside of the Peak District National Park Timetable Start of process May 2012 Publication and Representations Invited March 2014 Submission to Secretary of State July 2014 Hearings November 2014 Adoption February 2015 Arrangements for Production Who will lead the production of the document? Regeneration Service at High Peak Borough Council Which committees are responsible for the Regeneration Select and Executive document? What resources are required? Internal - Regeneration Service External - Consultants What community and stakeholder involvement Consultation will be carried out as part of will there be? preparing the DPD in line with Government guidance Post Production

20 April 2014 Local Development Scheme 2014 Appendix D Local Development Document Profiles

HIGH PEAK LOCAL PLAN How will the document be monitored and It will be monitored on an annual basis and reviewed? reviewed if necessary

Table 2

April 2014 21 Local Development Scheme 2014 Appendix D Local Development Document Profiles

POLICIES MAP Purpose and Overview What is the subject of the document? To identify boundaries of policy sites and key policies areas and areas of the Borough with specific designations What will be the content of the document? It will be an ordnance survey base map with larger scale insets as necessary showing designations What is the status of the document? Development Plan Document (DPD) What is the relationship with other LDDs and It conforms generally with the Local Plan position in the chain of conformity? What policies in the Development Plan will the The Proposals Maps document replace in whole or in part? What geographical area does it cover? All of High Peak Borough outside of the Peak District National Park Timetable The Policies Map would be amended where the production of a DPD lead to a change on the saved Policies Map. The timetable for production would be in accordance with the relevant DPD Arrangements for Production Who will lead the production of the document? Regeneration Service Which committees are responsible for the Regeneration Select and Executive document? What resources are required? Internal - Planning Policy and Design Section External - Printing What community and stakeholder involvement Consultation will be carried out as part of will there be? preparing the DPD Post Production How will the document be monitored and The relevant DPDs will be monitored - if those reviewed? policies require revision then so may the Policies Map

Table 3

22 April 2014 Local Development Scheme 2014 Appendix D Local Development Document Profiles

ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT Purpose and Overview What is the subject of the document? To monitor the implementation of the LDS and the extent to which the LDD are being implemented What is the status of the document? Local Development Document (LDD) What is the relationship with other LDDs and It conforms with the NPPF and must conform position in the chain of conformity? with the Local Plan and other DPDs What geographical area does it cover? All of High Peak Borough outside of the Peak District National Park Timetable The report will be monitored on an annual basis Arrangements for Production Who will lead the production of the document? Regeneration Service Which committees are responsible for the Regeneration Select and Executive document? What resources are required? Internal - Regeneration Service What community and stakeholder involvement None required will there be? Post Production How will the document be monitored and It will be reviewed on an annual basis reviewed?

Table 4

April 2014 23 Local Development Scheme 2014 Appendix E Existing SPG and related guidance

Existing Supplementary Planning Guidance Note: Where SPG linked to the 1998 Local Plan remains in use, the governing policy remains substantially unchanged in the 2005 Local Plan Date Saved Policy (2005) Comments Development Briefs Housing Allocations Otterhole Farm, St 1998 H4 Johns Road, Buxton Torr Vale Mill, New 1999 TC13 Mills Employment Allocations Wren Nest Road, 1997 EMP1 Glossop Housing Policy Provision of Affordable 2003 H9 Revised SPD planned Housing Local Open Space in 2004 H12 Appendix of Local Plan Residential Development Glossop Urban 2003 H1 LDD - Evidence Base Capacity Study* Central Area Urban 2003 H1 LDD - Evidence Base Capacity Study* Buxton Urban Capacity 2003 H1 LDD - Evidence Base Study* *These documents were produced for the 2003 Local Plan inquiry and were not subject to the usual round of consultation because of time restraints (2002 studies were). They will be replaced by the SHLAA Conservation Area Character Appraisals A detailed study of the Conservation Area - subject to consultation and developed as a SPD Chapel en le Frith 1999 BC5 Conservation Area Study Norfolk Square, 1999 BC5 Glossop Conservation Area

24 April 2014 Local Development Scheme 2014 Appendix E Existing SPG and related guidance

Existing Supplementary Planning Guidance Note: Where SPG linked to the 1998 Local Plan remains in use, the governing policy remains substantially unchanged in the 2005 Local Plan Date Saved Policy (2005) Comments Padfield Conservation 1999 BC5 Area New Mills Conservation 2001 BC5 Area Whaley Bridge 2001 BC5 Conservation Area Conservation Area Briefs A brief description of the Conservation Area, subject to more limited consultation as early SPG Glossop - St James 1994 BC5 Glossop - Wren Nest 1994 BC5 Hadfield 1994 BC5 Holehouse, Chisworth 1994 BC5 Tintwistle 1994 BC5 Buxworth 1994 BC5 Chapel Milton 1994 BC5 Combs 1994 BC5 Leaden Knowle 1994 BC5 Wash 1994 BC5 Whitle 1994 BC5 Design Guides and Advice Leaflets Guidlines for the 2002 H11 Appendix of Local Plan Design and Layout of will be amended by Residential new SPD Development Guidelines for the 2002 EMP6 Appendix of Local Plan Design and Layout of Industrial/Business Development Parking Standards 2003 H11 Crime and Design 2004 GD7

April 2014 25 Local Development Scheme 2014 Appendix E Existing SPG and related guidance

Existing Supplementary Planning Guidance Note: Where SPG linked to the 1998 Local Plan remains in use, the governing policy remains substantially unchanged in the 2005 Local Plan Date Saved Policy (2005) Comments A Design Guide for 1993 BC2 Shopfronts A Design Guide for 1993 BC4 Signs Conservation Areas 1993 BC5 Listed Buildings 1993 BC7 Repointing Your 1993 BC1 Building Protection of Trees on 1986 OC10 Development Sites Construction of Trails 1992 TR14 Concept Statements/Other Technical Documents Status Saved Policy (2005) Target Date for Completion Otter Controls Complete TC14 2005 Development Brief Harpur Hill College Complete H4 2005 Concept Statement Market Street Concept Complete TC14 2005 Statement Woods Mill Glossop Complete TC11 2005 Concept Statement

Table 5

26 April 2014 Local Development Scheme 2014 Appendix F Saved Local Plan Policies

Saved Policies General Development Framework GD2 Built Up Area Boundaries GD3 Improvement Corridors GD4 Character, Form and Design GD5 Amenity GD6 Landscaping GD7 Crime Prevention GD12 Unstable Land, Landfill and Contaminated Sites GD13 Buxton Mineral Water Conservation and Enhancement of the Open Environment OC1 Countryside Development OC2 Green Belt Development OC3 Special Landscape Area Development OC4 Landscape Character and Design OC5 Development Conspicuous from the Peak District National Park OC8 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance OC10 Trees and Woodlands Conservation and Enhancement of the Built Environment BC1 External Materials BC2 Shop Fronts BC3 Security Measures BC5 Conservation Areas and their Settings BC6 Demolition in Conservation Areas BC7 Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings BC8 Settings of Listed Buildings BC9 Demolition of Listed Buildings BC10 Archaeological and other Heritage Features BC11 Historic Parks and Gardens

April 2014 27 Local Development Scheme 2014 Appendix F Saved Local Plan Policies

Saved Policies Town Centres and Retailing TC1 Town Centres TC2 Town Centre Environment TC3 Large Stores TC4 Large Stores Which Cannot Be Located In Existing Town Centres TC5 Small Shops TC6 Retention of Local Centres and Village Shops TC9 The Evening Economy - Pubs, Clubs and Takeaways TC10 Car Parking and Town Centre Access Improvements TC11 Regeneration Areas in Glossop TC12 Prime Retail Frontage TC13 Torr Vale Mill Regeneration Area TC14 Regeneration Area at Hogs Yard TC15 Regenerations Areas in Buxton Population and Housing H1 New Housing Provision H2 Housing and Infrastructure in Glossopdale H4 Housing in Buxton H5 Housing within the Built-up Area Boundaries H9 Affordable Housing for Local Needs H10 Rural 'Exceptions' Affordable Housing for Local Needs H11 Layout and Design of Residential Development H12 Public Local Open Space H13 Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside H14 Domestic Extensions and Ancillary Dwellings H15 Sub-division of Existing Dwellings

28 April 2014 Local Development Scheme 2014 Appendix F Saved Local Plan Policies

Saved Policies H16 Houses in Multiple Occupation H17 Gypsy Sites Employment and Business EMP1 Industry and Business Allocations in the Glossopdale Area EMP2 Industry and Business Allocations in the Central Area EMP3 Industry and Business Allocations in the Buxton Area EMP4 Primary Employment Zones EMP5 Open Storage and Processing EMP6 Industry and Business within the Built-Up Area Boundaries and Homeworking EMP7 Industry and Business in the Countryside EMP8 Infilling/Redevelopment at Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt EMP9 Change of Use from Industry or Business Leisure and Tourism LT3 Protection of Recreational Land and Facilities LT4 New Recreation Facilities LT5 Horse Riding Facilities, Stables and Riding Schools LT6 Golf Courses LT7 Intensive Outdoor Recreation LT8 Air, Motorised and Shooting Sports LT10 Buxton's Spa Heritage LT11 Canals and Canal Basins LT13 Touring Caravan and Camp Sites Community Facilities and Utility Services CF2 Local Community Facilities CF3 School and College Facilities

April 2014 29 Local Development Scheme 2014 Appendix F Saved Local Plan Policies

Saved Policies CF4 Childcare Facilities CF5 Residential Care Facilities CF7 Telecommunications CF10 Renewable Energy Transport and Access TR1 Transport Implications of New Development TR2 A57/A628 Mottram-Tintwistle By-Pass and A57 Glossop Spur TR3 Local Road Schemes TR4 Traffic Management TR5 Access, Parking and Design TR7 New Railway Infrastructure TR9 Disused Railway Lines TR11 Footpaths, Bridleways and Byways TR13 Long Distance and Local Trails TR14 The Protection and Construction of Trails

Table 6

30 April 2014 Local Development Scheme 2014 Appendix G Glossory of Terms

GLOSSARY OF TERMS DP Development Plan - The documents used to determine planning applications and having a specific meaning and relevance to planning law DPD Development Plan Document - LDDs that establish planning policies and land use allocations. They form part of the DP performing a similar function to Local Plans LDD Local Development Documents - The separate planning documents that together make up the LDF. They can be either DPDs or SPDs LDF Local Development Framework - A portfolio of plans that sets out the Councils planning policy framework LDS Local Development Scheme -A three year programme for the preparation of the LDF, 'rolled forward each year LSP Local Strategic Partnership - A partnership of government bodies and other agencies which prepares the Community Strategy. In this are the partnership covers High Peak and Derbyshire Dales Districts PPS Planning Policy Statement RSS Regional Spatial Strategy - Replaces Regional Planning Guidance SCI Statement of Community Involvement - A statement of how the Council will consult the community and other stakeholders when preparing LDDs and dealing with planning applications SPD Supplementary Planning Documents -LDDs that give additional guidance on matters covered by DPDs, similar to the former SPGs. They do not form part of the DP. SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance -Replaced under the new system by SPDs, SPGs were a less formal means of expanding Development Plan Policy

Table 7

April 2014 31