BROADLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
APPEAL BY: Mr Kevin Cossey and Miss Deborah High against the refusal of Broadland District Council to grant outline planning permission for the residential development of up to 7 self-build dwellings, with all matters reserved except for access, at Land North of Marsh Road, Halvergate, NR13 3QB.
PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: APP/K2610/W/20/3245582
LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY REFERENCE: 20190827
LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY STATEMENT
1. THE APPEAL PROPOSAL
1.1 The application for planning permission to which this appeal relates was received on 17 May 2019 and declared valid on the same date. It sought outline planning permission for the erection of 7 self-build dwellings on land to the north of Marsh Road, Halvergate, with all matters reserved except from the access. The application sought to retain an existing field access off Marsh Road, positioned fairly central along the sites southern boundary. Although indicative only at this stage, the Site Plan shows an internal private drive then running to the east and west, serving four dwellings to the east and three to the west. The proposal was for each dwelling to be of a varied design, whilst following a set development limit and pallete of material. The Site Plan indicatively shows all of the dwellings to be set back the same distance into the site and orientated to front Marsh Road. Planning permission was refused on 26 July 2019.
2. THE SITE AND ITS LOCATION
2.1 This is as set out on page 1 of the determining officer’s delegated report that was forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate with the appeal questionnaire.
3. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES
3.1 Confirmation of the planning policies that are relevant to this appeal are set out in the officer’s delegated report that was forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate with the appeal questionnaire.
3.2 It is noted that reference to the Policy RL1 of the Development Management DPD 2015 was not made in the determining officers Delegated Report Sheet and wasn’t sent over with the appeal questionnaire. This policy is relevant as the application relates to development consisting of five dwellings or more. Details of Policy RL1 can be found in appendix A of this report. Although this policy was not mentioned it is not considered that this results in any material changes to the decision made by the Local Planning Authority.
4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 There is not considered to be any significantly relevant planning history on the application site.
5. EXPLANATORY COMMENTS
5.1 The Local Planning Authority (LPA) considers the main reasons for refusal for the appeal application and therefore main issues for consideration in the determination of this appeal are:-
(i) The harm caused to the Conservation Area in conflict with Policy 2 of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS), Policy EN2 of the Development Management DPD (DM DPD) and the requirements of S72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990.
(ii) The harm caused to the setting of the nearby listed building in conflict with Policy 2 of the JCS and the requirements of S66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990.
(iii) The conflict with Policies 1 and 6 of the JCS in that future occupants of the proposed dwellings would be dependent on the private car to access facilities and services.
(iv) The conflict with Policy GC2 of the DM DPD in that the site is located outside of any defined settlement limits, is not supported by any specific development management policies which allow for development outside of the development boundary and due to the Council being able to demonstrate a five year land supply.
5.2 In the introduction section (paragraph 1.4) of the appellant’s appeal statement, reference is made to the policies for housing being out of date; it is inferred that this is due to the appellants considering: the supply of sites in the 5YHLS not to be sufficiently justified; that the Development Plan is silent on self-build housing; and that insufficient provision is being made to address self-build demand. No other reasons have been given. The Council has addressed the issues of land supply and self-build in the below sections and Appendix C, but reserves the right to respond to any further issues raised in this respect.
5.3 In paragraph 6.24 of the appellants appeal statement it states that the Council has not mentioned Policy GC2 in their decision notice, however this is clearly sited in both the officer’s delegated report and the decision notice.
6. LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY (LPA) COMMENTS
6.1 The LPA considers that the decision notice adequately sets out its position on the reasons for refusing planning permission. However, there are some additional items that the LPA would like to draw to the Inspector’s attention with regards to the following four main reasons for refusal and with regards to the appellants appeal statement.
6.2 The appellants appeal statement has discussed the first two reasons for refusal together so, for consistency, the LPA have responded in the same way.
The harm caused to the conservation area and nearby listed building
6.3 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act) 1990 states “In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.” Section 72 (1) states that it is the general duty as respects conservation areas in exercise of planning functions to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. The NPPF paragraph 194 requires that “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.) Paragraph 196 requires that “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.” Policy 2 of the JCS says development proposals will respect local distinctiveness, including (5th paragraph) ‘the landscape character and historic environment, taking account of conservation area appraisals’. Policy EN2 of the DM DPD states that ‘in order to protect the character of the area, development proposals should have regard to the Landscape Character Assessment SPD and, in particular, consider any impact upon as well as seek to protect and enhance where appropriate (iv) Conservation Areas’.
6.4 The conservation area appraisal for Halvergate and Tunstall provides information on what are the important characteristics and aspects of the appearance of the conservation area. Although the planning statement submitted by the appellants as part of the application states that the appraisal is over five years old, it is only a requirement of section 71 of the of the Planning (listed buildings and conservation area) 1990 Act that “it shall be the duty of a local planning authority from time to time to formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of any parts of their area which are conservation areas.” Considering that there has been relatively little change to the conservation area since the appraisal was written in 2007, the appraisal is still a valid reference point and material consideration to assist in determining the application.
6.5 The location and setting of Halvergate is described in the conservation area appraisal (page 3) as “though not more than sixteen miles from Norwich and eight miles from Great Yarmouth, Halvergate is relatively cut-off from outside. It is situated on the western edge of the, now drained, Great Marsh which lies between the Rivers Yare to the south and Bure to the north and stretched eastwards to Breydon Water and Great Yarmouth. There are no further villages or roads to the east, while to the south, beyond Freethorpe, travel is confined to the ferry at Reedham. Until the building of the Acle Straight and the Branch Road across the marshes, the only land line would have been westwards to Norwich via by-ways and small village, and eastwards along the Stone Road and the Fleet Dyle to Great Yarmouth.” The appraisal goes on to describe that “the sense of isolation is very apparent as one approaches the village across the marshes from the Stracey Arms, the village is set on rising ground against a backdrop of trees, in marked contrast to the flat foreground.“ It should also be noted that some of the surrounding landscape is within the Broads National Park.
6.6 The 1797 Faden’s Map on page 3 of the conservation area appraisal is useful in terms of showing the area of common land associated with the village prior to enclosure. The field and immediate area to the north of Marsh Road was within the area of common land and this explains the open spaces and relatively dispersed nature of historic dwellings in this area, as well as the clustering of dwellings elsewhere in the village where they were located around the edge of the common area. In what is generally a flat area and with the common being located on higher ground, the common would have historically provided a place of refuge for people to inhabit dwellings and a relatively safe place for their livestock to graze. Although transportation and connectivity improved during the C19 and C20 the distance of the village from both Norwich and Great Yarmouth, and the wider area being relatively low density of habitation, the settlement retained the characteristics of being a relatively isolated rural settlement with relatively limited services.
6.7 Therefore, even after the enclosure of common areas, and the modicum of later development that has taken place during more recent decades, the village has retained the relatively large open spaces which were formerly part of the common throughout the village. Many of these spaces have retained an agricultural use and lend the character of the village a more spaced out dispersed rural character. The introduction of the conservation area appraisal states that the boundaries are “intended to include both groups of buildings of interest which have been identified and the open spaces and trees which form their setting and keep them distinct from each other.” The appraisal identifies ten different clusters of building of interest, with associated landscaped, walls and views. The character and appearance of the settlement is therefore quite different to the character of a linear settlement, a description that has been attributed to it in paragraph 3.22 of the appellant’s planning statement.
6.8 With regard to important buildings within the conservation area affected by the proposals these include the grade II listed Red Lion Public House, and the buildings which are not listed but identified in the conservation area appraisal as being of interest: the former school, now known as School Lodge guesthouse; Sunnyside, Marsh Road; The White House, Squires Road and the former Primitive Methodist Chapel, now a house, on Chapel Lane. The appraisal states in the introduction that it is “the special character of both settlements derived from the way in which groups of buildings are set in the landscape and separated from each other by open spaces and trees.” To the north of Marsh Road buildings are all viewed within their historic relationships to each other and the open spaces, this is of significance in terms of the setting of the conservation area.
6.9 With regard to the relationship between the buildings of interest and the field as an open space, to the north west of the site The White House has large 1st floor bay windows which you can ascertain to have been designed in that way to take advantage of views to the rear, towards the east, which includes this area of rural open space/field. Paragraph 6.2 of the Heritage Impact Statement acknowledges that there are views through the hedge from Marsh Road towards the house. The former school is set in a rural area to the west of the site within a rural context to its east comprising of Squires Road, which has the character of the lane, the hedgerow field boundaries of the site. However, with its low height and landscaping it is accepted that it does have a relatively enclosed setting and will be less affected. To the east is the historic grouping identified in the appraisal that includes the Methodist Chapel, Sunnyside, both identified as buildings of interest with the conservation area, and the adjacent grade II Red Lion public house. These are viewed within a rural setting with the field and hedgerows to the west. The former Methodist Chapel closely fronts onto Chapel Lane and fronts towards the open space. It is clearly visible in views across the field and the heritage impact statement refers to the chapel in para 6.3 as being an ‘eyecatcher’. The proposed development will have a detrimental impact on the rural relationship between buildings identified as being of interest and important spaces within the conservation area, and consequently the conservation area will neither be preserved or enhanced.
6.10 In consideration of the Red Lion as a grade II designated heritage asset, the significance of the building lies in its architectural and historic importance as a C18 vernacular building with its thatch roof and low eaves, and later pantile extension to the east. The building also has historic significance as a village public house which, according to licence information on the Norfolk Historic Pubs website, has a licence dating back to at least 1789.
6.11 In paragraph 7.4 of the appellants appeal statement it states that the public house is Grade II listed for its internal architectural interest. There is no evidence, however, that the building was listed only for its interior interest and although it is likely to also have elements of significance within the interior, none are mentioned in the list description. In terms of the setting of the listed building, it is still viewed within its historic context, including the early C19 Sunnyside to the west (which the Heritage Impact Assessment acknowledges as group value of both houses), with the rural setting of the lane, the field and field hedgerows. With regard to the impact of the proposed development, being outline the information on the number of units, potential building form and height is only indicative but it can be considered that the proposals as presented would not preserve the wider setting of the listed building and would result in less than substantial harm.
6.12 The conservation area appraisal refers to important views including along Marsh Road looking towards the Red Lion public house with the forecourt, and also along Chapel Lane, and also identifies the existing hedgerows along Chapel Lane and Marsh Road as being important to the rural character of the area and are an important feature of these views. The proposed infill would introduce inappropriate development to the north side of Marsh Road and disrupt the relationship between the buildings and their rural setting, including how they are viewed along Chapel Lane and Marsh Road.
6.13 In reference to the hedging along the sites southern boundary, paragraph 1.5 of the appellants appeal statement states that the ‘the proposal completely avoids the hedge’. The Highway Authority comments on the application concluded however that ‘to provide this level of visibility (43m x 2.4m x 43m splays required) and the required access road to the site, would require removal of significant amounts of mature hedgerow and trees’. Although it may be proposed to retain part of the hedge, the development would nevertheless result in some loss to the hedgerow and the development would also be clearly visible behind it particularly in winter months. This would consequently alter the rural character of the area described as being significant in the conservation area appraisal.
6.14 The proposed development has been submitted as outline, however the indicative plan shows a linear form of development with regular plot sizes fronting onto Marsh Road. With a design code, plot passports and self-build there is scope to have variations in the design of each dwelling. However, the overall impact will be the creation of a more urban and regular linear form of development rather than the looser grain of development with building clusters which is characteristic of a more rural settlement and which has been preserved to the present day. Although the proposals state that it will be retaining the open area of the site, through not developing the whole field and retaining a significant section of the hedgerow to the front, the development will block the views of the field and open space from the road, as well as isolated buildings of interest, creating a quite different and more enclosed feel to Marsh Road. This will have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area, as it will feel more built up and urban rather than preserving a more rural character.
6.15 Within paragraphs 7.8 to 7.15 of the appellant appeal statement there is reference to a sequential approach being taken, regarding the selection of the site. Although the appellants may have come to the conclusion that this is the best site for development in Halvergate, this is considered to be of little relevance as the ultimate assessment is whether the development protects and enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area.
6.16 In conclusion, the conservation area appraisal states within the introduction on page 2 that “modern residential development in Halvergate has already led to the erosion of some of these separating spaces; further development would put at risk the special character of the village”. The development proposes a modern linear grain of development fronting onto the north side of Marsh Road, which will obscure views of the open agricultural space which was formerly part of the village common and the historic buildings which can viewed around it. This will result in a more urban built up character and consequently there will be a significant change in the character and appearance of the conservation area, which will neither be preserved nor enhanced and will lead to less than substantial harm. The development will also not preserve the setting of the Red Lion public house as a designated heritage assets and can also be considered to result in less than substantial harm to the heritage asset. This level of harm needs to be given great weight in the planning balance.
Future occupants of the proposed dwellings would be dependent on the private car to access facilities and services.
6.17 Halvergate is a small village with limited services and facilities. It has a village hall, a recreation area, a church and a public house, but there are no services such as schools, shops or doctors surgery. There would therefore be a need to travel to surrounding towns and villages to access such services. Freethorpe is the nearest settlement which is approximately 1.8km away. The roads connecting the site to Freethorpe are rural roads with no footpaths or street lighting, with elements of these subject to the national speed limit. Therefore the facilities contained within Freethorpe are not easily or safely accessible from the site by walking or cycling.
6.18 The nearest town that offers services that has the potential to meet all everyday needs, including shopping and employment is Acle, which is located approximately 4 miles away from the site whilst Great Yarmouth which is approximately 8 miles away. Therefore whilst there may be more services available in nearby towns and villages, these are considered to be some distance from the appeal site. In addition there are limited designated pedestrian footpaths in the village, and those that are in existence are unlit and therefore would not be frequently used during darker hours or inclement weather conditions.
6.19 In regards to public transport, a bus stop is located immediately outside the site close to the Marsh Road / Squires Road junction which is served by the 73A and 73C bus services. There are two services a day, Monday to Friday. The bus picks up from this stop twice in the morning, at 7:42 and 10:01. The 7.42 bus needs to be pre booked. Outside of term time it’s the 73A bus which is a circular route starting and stopping at Acle, but during term time it’s the 73C goes on to Gorleston to serve the East Norfolk Sixth Form College. In terms of the return journey back to the site, aside from a pre-book service there is one scheduled bus which leaves Acle at 14:20 but, as well as not running on weekends, this service doesn’t run on a Wednesday. A copy of the bus timetable can be viewed in Appendix B of this statement.
6.20 The bus services in the area are therefore considered to be limited which severely limits the likelihood and convenience of bus use. As a result, in order to access services such as schools, health facilities and shops, any future occupiers of the proposed development would need to travel to other settlements and therefore they are likely to be dependent on the private car for their daily needs.
6.21 The Inspector for another recent appeal in Halvergate, appeal ref: APP/K2610/W/18/3208184, came to a similar view. He concluded that the appeal site would be ‘unacceptably remote from all of the day to day services required, and the lack of alternative transport options would result in a heavy reliance on the use of the private car’. This site was less than 300 metres from the appeal site in question and so the Inspectors view is considered particularly relevant. The above appeal was for the addition of a single dwelling and the full decision can be found in Appendix C of this statement.
6.22 In the paragraphs 7.18 to 7.21 of the appellants appeal statement, reference is made to paragraph 78 of the NPPF which states that ‘where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby’. It is considered however that the contribution that would be made towards surrounding villages from up to 7 dwellings would be modest and this would not outweigh the harms that have been identified.
6.23 In paragraphs 7.22 and 7.23 of the appellant’s statement reference is made to an appeal for 7 dwellings in Spooner Row, South Norfolk under appeal APP/LP2630/W/15/3003743. It should be noted that this a 2014 appeal for a site within a different district, and has been assessed against different planning policies. Notwithstanding this, it should also be noted that Spooner Row is classified as a Service Village within the JCS. Service Villages are defined as having a good level of services and facilities. As an example, a primary school was located virtually opposite the Spooner Row appeal site. Halvergate is defined as a smaller rural community and the countryside within Policy 17 of the JCS and there is therefore considered to be significant differences between this site and the appeal site in question.
6.24 In paragraph 7.24 of the appellant’s statement, reference is made to an appeal APP/F2605/W/16/3148954. Again this is in a completely different location to the appeal site in question and again it is within a different district and has been assessed against different planning policies.
6.25 In paragraphs 7.25 and 7.26 of the appellant’s appeal statement, reference is made to appeal APP/F2605/W/18/3198911. Once more this appeal is for a site within a different location and a different district, and has been assessed against different planning policies. Notwithstanding this, this site was located approximately 480 metres from a bus stop which ran a regular service (about every ½ hour, with a total journey time of approx. 20 minutes) into Attleborough which is a major centre for employment and residential growth, with a full range of local services, including primary and secondary schools, primary health care, mainline rail connections to Norwich and Cambridge and an established town centre. No similar assessment has been undertaken by the appellants for this site to demonstrate that future occupiers would have any realistic transport choices for accessing day-to-day activities. Therefore, again there are considered to be clear differences between the site mentioned by the appellant and the appeal site in question.
6.26 The appellants have also made reference to appeal APP/D3505/W/18/3196882 in paragraph 7.27 of their appeal statement. Once more this is for a site which is in a completely different location and district and again the development plan policies being considered would have been different.
6.27 Overall, it is therefore considered that, whilst these appeals had reference to the amount of services and facilities in the area, all of the sites within the different appeals referenced by the appellant are located at a considerable distance from the appeal site, within a different district, and are therefore materially different. The LPA therefore feel that limited weight should be given to these appeals.
6.28 Norfolk County Council in their role as Highway Authority objected to the application for the reason that the appeal site is remote from local service centre provision. They stated that occupiers would be over-reliant on the use of car which is contrary to sustainability objectives, seeking to site residential development at locations where alternative means of transport to services are safely and frequently available. The Highway Authority, have indicated that they will be providing a Highways Statement of Case in support of their objection, which will be sent to the Planning Inspector separately.
The developments conflict with Policy GC2 in that it is not supported by any specific development management policies which allow for development outside of the development boundary and due to the Council being able to demonstrate a five year land supply.
6.29 Policy GC2 of the Development Management DPD states that new development will be accommodated within the settlement limits defined on the policies map. Halvergate does not benefit from a settlement limit and therefore the site is located outside of any defined settlement limit. The proposed development consequently would constitute new development outside of any defined settlement limit for the purposes of Policy GC2. Policy GC2 continues to state that outside of these limits, development which does not result in any significant adverse impact will be permitted where it accords with a specific allocation and/or policy of the development plan. As set out in the above paragraphs within section 6, it is considered that the development will result in significant adverse impacts, given the sites unsustainable location and the harms caused to the Conservation Area and nearby listed building. Notwithstanding this, the development would also not accord with a specific allocation or any specific development management policies which allow for development outside of the boundary.
6.30 Whilst the principle of development in this location is contrary to the DM DPD and JCS, regard must also be had to the requirements of the NPPF. The NPPF requires authorities to supply sites sufficient to provide 5 years’ worth of land for housing (in addition to a 5%, 10% or 20% buffer subject to circumstances). The Council can demonstrate a 5 year land supply, as set out in the Housing Land Supply Appendix of the most recently published Annual Monitoring Report. In paragraph 7.34 of the appellant’s appeal statement it is the appellants view that the Council is unable to evidence this supply. The appellants make several assertions regarding the land supply, including that the method of calculation has changed over time. As the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk is now over five-years old, land supply is calculated under the requirements of the NPPF and PPG, which means: Measuring land supply over the three-district area of Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (Greater Norwich), which is the basis of current and future Strategic Development Plan policies for the area, and the level at which Housing Delivery Test (HDT) outputs are published; Using Local Housing Need to set the requirement for the assessment; Applying the 5% buffer, reflecting the 140% achieved in the most recently published HDT. The appellants do not appear to dispute any of these points. The appellants have, however, also produced a GNDP AMR 5-YHLS Investigation report, which seeks to reduce the sources of supply. The Council do not share this view and have provided a response to this report, which can be found in Appendix D of this report.
6.31 The appellants also suggest at their paragraph 7.34 that ‘numerous appeal decisions’ have confirmed a current lack of five-year land supply; however, only one decision (Ref. APP/K2610/W/19/3226697) is quoted in both the main Appeal Statement and the 5YHLS Investigation report, and the Council gives its reasons for not relying on this decision in para. 7 of Appendix D, attached.
6.32 Therefore, in accordance with the NPPF it is considered that the Development Plan is up to date in so far as it deals with housing supply. Full weight can therefore be given to the development plan policy GC2 which seeks to resist development in this location.
6.33 The appellants reference Appeal APP/L2630/W/18/3197272 at Tharston, as a reason for allowing development outside of defined Local Plan Settlement Limits, even when a land supply exists. It should be noted that this written representations appeal pre-dates an inquiry appeal at a nearby site in the neighbouring settlement of Long Stratton (Ref APP/L2630/W/18/3215019)(Attached as Appendix 5 with the appellants appeal statement), which drew a different conclusion. The parties had agreed, for the purposes of appeal 3215019, that a five-year supply existed, and that the site was a sustainable location. On this basis the Inspector highlighted that the principles for determining the appeal should:
‘… include weighing up the fundamental policy harm in allowing un-planned development in what should be a genuinely plan-led planning system, along with any additional harm arising.’
(Ref. APP/L2630/W/18/3215019, para 18, 23 August 2019) The Inspector explicitly acknowledged that:
‘… the proposal would deliver housing in the short term that would contribute towards the overall numbers, which are minimum; and it would contribute towards the government’s objectives of significantly boosting the supply of homes’
(Ref. APP/L2630/W/18/3215019, para 30, 23 August 2019)
But concluded that:
‘ … as it is agreed between parties that there is a 5 year supply of housing land, this would be unplanned development in the open countryside, undermining the plan led system.’ (Ref. APP/L2630/W/18/3215019, para 31, 23 August 2019)
This appeal was dismissed. The weight of subsequent appeals where Inspectors have concluded that there is a land supply in Greater Norwich, has been for dismissal, see para 8 of Appendix D. Even if the inspector is of the view that paragraph 11 of the NPPF is engaged, the LPA still consider that the adverse impacts of the development would significantly outweigh the benefits, when assessed as a whole.
6.34 In addition, in responding to this reason for refusal, the appellants appeal statement makes numerous references to Policy 1.3. This is a policy from the South Norfolk Local Plan Development Management. The policy therefore covers a different district and is worded differently to the relevant policy GC2 of the Broadland DM DPD. The LPA therefore consider that policy 1.3 has no relevance to the appeal being considered.
7. OTHER
7.1 Paragraphs 6.18 to 6.23 of the appellants appeal statement seeks to attribute significant weight to the proposal providing self-build housing. Paragraphs 6.21 and 6.23 considers that the Broadland Development Plan is effectively silent on the matter of ‘self-build’ or ‘custom housing’ so the tilted balance at paragraph 11(d) must be engaged. However, the general policy framework in the JCS and DMPD do not preclude the opportunity for sustainably located self-build development. Policy 4 of the JCS states that ‘proposals for housing will be required to contribute to the mix of housing required to provide balanced communities and meet the needs of the area’. Elsewhere it states that ‘to meet the existing and future needs of the community, developments will provide a mix of sizes, types and tenures appropriate to the location’. It is clear that this policy does not preclude self-build, affordable, supported or any other housing and that there is flexibility to cater for varying needs. Accordingly, the development plan is consistent with paragraph 61 the NPPF and the relevant development plan policies, most important for determining this application, remain up-to-date. Appeal decisions in South Norfolk, which falls under the same JCS Policy 4, have concluded that the Development Plan is not silent on the issue of self-build:
‘The appellant asserts that the development plan is silent on self-build and as such there are no relevant development plan policies so the tilted balance at paragraph 11(d) must be engaged. However, the general policy framework in the JCS and DMPD do not preclude the opportunity for sustainably located self-build development. Consequently, the relevant development plans policies most important for determining this appeal remain up-to-date.’
(Ref. APP/L2630/W/19/3234419, Para 20, 17 October 2019)
and
‘The appellant asserts that the development plan is silent on self-build and as such by virtue of having no relevant development plan policies the tilted balance at paragraph 11(d) is engaged. This is a moot point as I am not aware that the general policy framework in either the JCS or DMPD precludes the wide variety of opportunities for sustainably located self-build.’
(Ref. APP/L2630/W/19/3226079, Para 17, 3 September 2019)
7.2 The appellant’s agent has also sought to cast doubt on what the Council is counting towards meeting its base period targets. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 sets out that Local Planning Authorities must give suitable development permission in respect of enough serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self and custom housebuilding in the authority’s area arising in each base period. The same Act states that “development permission is suitable if it is permission in respect of development that could include self-build and custom housebuilding”. The legislation does not set out that the development permission is suitable only if it is for self-build and custom housebuilding. Instead, the phrase “development that could (Council emphasis) include self-build and custom housebuilding” is used. Against that background, the Council is confident that it is counting new dwellings and serviced plots of land that could be used for self-build or custom housebuilding in an appropriate fashion.
7.3 Below is a table which shows the Council’s position with regards to self-build, including the number of entries on part 1 of the register for each base period, the number of permissions granted which are suitable for self-build and the number of plots available from those permissions.;- Entries on Part 1 of Number of permissions register for Base Period Number of plots granted suitable for self- Monitoring for Base 1 - 1 April 2016 - 30 available from those build 31 October 2016 - Year 1 Completed October 2016 (combined permissions 30 October 2017 register) 35 60 81 November 2017
Entries on Part 1 of Number of permissions Number of plots register for Base Period granted suitable for self- Monitoring for Base available from those 2 - 31 October 2016 - 30 build 31 October 2017 - Year 2 Completed permissions October 2017 30 October 2018 30 (this figure included 81 101 November 2018 21 from base period 1)
Entries on Part 1 of Number of permissions Number of plots register for Base Period granted suitable for self- Monitoring for Base available from those 3 - 31 October 2017 - 30 build 31 October 2018 - Year 3 Completed permissions October 2018 30 October 2019 5 61 74 November 2019
Entries on Part 1 of Number of permissions Number of plots register for Base Period granted suitable for self- Monitoring for Base available from those 4 - 31 October 2018 - 30 build 31 October 2019 - Year 4 Completed permissions October 2019 30 October 2020 3 Not Yet Available Not Yet Available Not Yet Available
Entries on Part 1 of Number of permissions register for Base Period Number of plots granted suitable for self- Monitoring for Base 5 - 31 October 2019 - 30 available from those build 31 October 2020 - Year 5 Completed October 2020 (as at permissions 30 October 2021 28/07/2020) 2 Not Yet Available Not Yet Available Not Yet Available
7.4 Given the numbers of suitable permissions granted in previous monitoring periods, it is considered almost certain that sufficient new permissions will be added in the current and next monitoring periods. Notwithstanding this, even if the Inspector was to decide that there was a shortfall in supply, the LPA still consider that the adverse impacts of the development would significantly outweigh the benefits, when assessed as a whole.
7.5 Policy EN3 of the Broadland DM DPD requires that development consisting of five dwellings or more will be expected to provide towards open space and green infrastructure. Policy RL1 also requires residential development of five dwellings or more to provide towards formal recreation space. As set out in the determining officer’s delegated report this could be secured through a legal agreement, however the Council have received no Unilateral Undertaking or legal agreement to secure such contributions.
8.0 SUMMARY
8.1 In summary, the development will infill a gap within the built form of the village, result in the removal of part of the frontage hedgerow and degrade good views identified in the conservation area. This would result in less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area, which would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. The development would also erode the setting of the grade II listed Red Lion Public House which would result in less than substantial harm to the setting of the listed building, which again would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposals. The application is therefore considered to fail to comply with Policy 2 of the JCS, Policy EN2 of the DM DPD and Sections 66 (1) and 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990.
8.2 The site is located in an area with limited services and facilities with a limited amount of well-lit public footpaths and opportunities for public transport. As a result potential future occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be overly reliant on the private car to access facilities and services in conflict with Policies 1 and 6 of the JCS. The appeal site is also located outside of any defined settlement limit, is not allocated and the development is not supported by any specific development management policy which allows development outside of the development boundary. The Council can also demonstrate a five year land supply. When also considering the significant adverse impacts in terms of the above mentioned harms caused to the conservation area and listed building and the unsustainable location of the site, it is considered that the application fails to comply with Policy GC2 of the DM DPD. Even if the inspector is of the view that the Council is unable to demonstrate a housing land supply and paragraph 11 of the NPPF is engaged, the LPA still consider that the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed as a whole.
9.0 CONCLUSION
9.1 The Local Planning Authority remains of the view that the proposed development is unacceptable for the reasons set out above and within the decision notice.
9.2 The Inspector is respectfully invited to share this view and dismiss the appeal. If, after consideration of the representations made, it is decided that the appeal should be allowed, the Local Planning Authority recommends that the planning conditions outlined in the below Appendix E are imposed. These will be in addition to any conditions that are suggested by the Highway Authority, who are commenting on this appeal separately.
Appendix A – Policy RL1 of the Development Management DPD 2015
Appendix B - Halvergate Bus Timetable
Appendix C – Appeal Ref: APP/K2610/W/18/3208184 – 1 Hall Cottages, Halvergate
Appendix D – Council’s Response to Parker Planning Services – GNDP 5YHLS Investigation (May 2020)
1. The following sections set out a response to the ‘5-YHLS Investigation’ report, prepared by Parker Planning Services.
2. In particular, the Council considers that this partial reassessment does not credibly undermine the original assessment and fails to take into account the broadly cautious approach the Greater Norwich authorities have taken to calculating land supply.
Development Plan Housing Delivery Context
3. Before addressing the specific points raised by the appellant, the Council considers the following matters relevant to the consideration of the supply of housing:
As measured against Housing Delivery Test (HDT), Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk have delivered 140% of the homes required by Government over the period 2016/17 to 2018/19. This is an increase from the 133% identified in the HDT for the period 2015/16 to 2017/18. Since the base date of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk, the total housing commitment (sum of planning permissions and allocations) has increased from 14,090 homes to 33,270 homes. This is equivalent to a percentage increase of 136%. This substantial increase in commitment has been delivered against a backdrop of the 18,251 housing completions between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2019. The appeal site lies within Halvergate. Under the adopted JCS, Halvergate lies within the area of Broadland that is outside the Norwich Policy Area (NPA). In the JCS the housing requirement for the Broadland area outside of the NPA is 1,605 homes between 2008 and 2026. Between the period 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2019 1,759 homes were delivered in the Broadland area outside of the NPA i.e. the housing requirement of the adopted development plan has already been met. Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk have already made substantial progress in the preparation of the Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP). Once adopted the GNLP will supersede the JCS and ensure that development needs to 2038 are met.
4. For the reasons set out in the following sections the Council considers that it has clearly shown a demonstrable 5 year housing land supply. Even in the absence of a housing land supply however, the factual positions set out above clearly indicate that no substantial weight could be given to the benefits of additional housing as part of the planning balance, that would justify a departure from the adopted development plan.
Deliverable Site – Appellants’ 5-YHLS Investigation section 2.0
5. The appellants note in their para. 2.2 that not all sites in the GNLP’s land supply have an agreed statement with the site promoter. The ‘select few’ sites with agreed statements; referred to by the appellants, represent over half of the larger sites included in the land supply, and provide substantial coverage of those sites that at the base date of the assessment did not benefit from detailed permission. The appellant’s’ Freedom of Information requests, referred to at their paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5, sought the covering correspondence (emails and letters) which accompanied the agreed statements, principally to verify the source of the information. The statements themselves had already been published on the Greater Norwich Development Partnership website, as an appendix to the land supply statement; to aid transparency.
6. All reasonable endeavours have been made to secure agreements with developers and agents where appropriate, it is however entirely justifiable to apply a degree of proportionality to this approach. For example, for a number of the sites in the latest supply, statements were previously provided for the 2017/18 AMR. Where progress has continued in line with those statements, it has not always been considered necessary to press the promoter for another statement for 2018/19. Similarly, where sites have detailed permission, and particularly where they are a significant way through construction, it has not been considered necessary to provide statements. Forecasts have been based on the latest site intelligence and the NPPF definition of deliverability is clear, as set out in the appellants’ para 2.7, that sites with detailed permission should be considered deliverable unless there is clear evidence that sites will not be delivered within 5 years. The Councils did not include any sites where such clear evidence existed.
7. The appeal decision referenced at para 2.6 is no longer considered to be directly relevant. The decision refers to an interim 1 April 2018 position. The April 2018 position was the first one produced under the requirements of the revised NPPF and PPG, and as such the interim approach was, at the time, untested. However, the Inspector for appeal ref APP/K2610/W/19/3226697 should have been updated with the finalised position, which had been published a few months prior to his decision. The finalised approach removed some of the ambiguity which seems to have led the Inspector to conclude that the Council could not demonstrate the required supply. In any event, the Inspector’s view on the interim position was not definitive; another Inspector had concluded at an earlier appeal:
‘The appellant states that as a draft statement yet to be formally endorsed only limited weight should be given. It is nonetheless, the most comprehensive evidence before me and is logical in its approach in applying the latest LHN and HDT inputs. I ascribe considerable weight to the statement such that I conclude that a five-year supply of deliverable housing land has been demonstrated.’
(APP/L2630/W/19/3226079, para 16, 3 September 2019)
8. More recent appeal decisions referencing the housing land supply position in Greater Norwich have concluded that there is no substantive evidence to suggest that the authorities cannot demonstrate sufficient Housing Land Supply, examples include:
‘There is dispute between the parties as to whether or not the Council can demonstrate a deliverable five year supply of housing land. From the evidence before me, particularly the Annual Monitoring Report (2017-2018), and without any credible evidence to refute the Council’s position there is a strong indication that a deliverable five year supply of housing land exists in the area.’ (APP/L2630/W/19/3233458, para 17, 26 February 2020)
‘The most recent available housing land supply data before me shows that the Council was able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. I have minimal contradictory evidence to suggest that the appellants’ reservations about this matter are founded. Therefore I have not found it necessary to consider the matter further.’ (APP/L2630/W/19/3240994, para 33, 16 March 2020)
‘The appellant considers that the Council’s housing land supply position is weak and that even if the Council could demonstrate a five-year supply, that supply is a minimum requirement, and appropriate windfall housing sites in sustainable locations should be brought forward. As part of the appeal the Council has provided an update to its housing land supply and delivery position.…
… I have considered this assessment and the views expressed by the appellant, including the appeal decisions to which I have been referred. However, the Council’s evidence is more recent and in the absence of any substantive, up-to- date evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s expressed position.’ (APP/K2610/W/19/3236351, paras 25 and 26, 16 April 2020)
‘… I note that the Council can currently identify a 5 year supply of housing land, and an excess of available housing within countryside areas. There is no convincing evidence before me that disputes this.’ (APP/L2630/W/19/3234180, para 6, 19 May 2020)
‘In context of the Council’s housing land supply position, the Council are able to demonstrate in excess of five years’ worth of deliverable housing land.’ (APP/L2630/W/19/3241717, para 14, 14 July 2020)
‘The Council can currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply (5YHLS) as required under paragraph 73 of the Framework.’ (APP/L2630/W/19/3243737, para 17, 17 July 2020)
9. The Council would make the general point that the appellant has questioned several of the agreed statements supplied by the professional agents and developers promoting those sites, without, in most instances, giving particular reasons as to why those statements should be doubted. As can be seen from the statements included at Appendix A of the appellants’ Investigation report, the site promoters have agreed a declaration which explicitly states that:
I confirm that: the site is available, viable and can be delivered at the point envisaged and at the build out rate shown in the delivery forecast. and, that to the best of my knowledge the information included within this Site Assessment form is accurate. The Council does not feel that any evidence has been provided that would bring into doubt the integrity of those developers and agents in agreeing this declaration as a true statement. It is therefore reasonable to take those statements at face value, unless there is specific evidence to suggest that they will not come forward within the land supply.
10. In terms of some of the specific sites in the appellant’s Table 1, the Council would make the following comments:
Broadland Sites
Coltishall: COL2 – This is a small site within a desirable and attractive Broadland Village. The site was allocated in the Broadland District Council Site Allocations Plan following independent examination. As evidenced by the Joint Delivery Statement, the site is now being actively progressed by a professional agent who has stated their clear intention to progress surveys on the site before marketing the site to housebuilders. The same professional agent has confirmed that the site is available and viable. In recognition that the site is at an earlier point in the process, the Council has assumed only 10 units of this site are forecast to be delivered within the 5 year housing land supply period. This is an entirely reasonable assessment based on the clear evidence of progress given by the agent.
South Walsham: 20161643 – It should be noted that this site listed twice by the appellant and therefore double counted in their assessment. As is the case elsewhere, this is a small site within a desirable and attractive Broadland Village. The site was allocated in the Broadland District Council Site Allocations Plan following independent examination. As evidenced by the Joint Delivery Statement the site has already secured outline planning permission and the owner has already identified a preferred purchaser. The need to secure 3rd party land is openly and transparently identified in the Joint Delivery Statement, it seems clear that this constraint has been identified, is well understood and the owner of the site who has detailed knowledge of the site does not consider that this undermines the viability or deliverability of the site. Whilst the Council understands that the site has not yet been purchased by a housebuilder, the fact that the site has outline permission, that clear progress has been made towards a sale and that constraints are well understood it seems is clear evidence that the homes planned for the site will be delivered within 5 years.
Growth Triangle, Beeston Park: 20161058 – As noted by the appellant the original 2013 approval for Beeston Park was amended in 2017. The amendment enabled the delivery of the lowest cost infrastructure phase of the development, totalling 733 homes, to be brought forward as the first phase. The purpose of this amendment was to enable a phase that would not be stymied by upfront infrastructure costs. As detailed in the commentary on the delivery forecast set out in the Joint Delivery Statement (which appears to have been omitted from the appellants statement) significant progress continues to be made on the site. Specifically: the current site promoter now has an “in-principle” agreement with the landowners to acquire phase 1; infrastructure funding has been secured through Homes England; the site has been actively marketed to developers with negotiations with specific developers having already been undertaken, including some engagement between developers and the local planning authority. In addition, strategic infrastructure reserved matters continue to be discharged with the site promoter continuing active discussions with the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) following the completion of further site investigations in early 2020. It is expected that the final package of drainage details will be formally submitted to the LLFA imminently. The site promoter, who has intimate knowledge of the site, has also confirmed through the Joint Delivery Statement that the site is viable. On the basis of the above, it is considered that clear evidence of deliverability has been shown. Notwithstanding the above, the council recognises that progress to date may no longer allow completions to be achieved in this financial year. The Council anticipates that this may result in up to a year’s delay but that it is still entirely justified to conclude that there would be significant completions on this site within the five year period.
Coltishall: 20170075 – As noted by the appellant the site has outline permission and has been purchased by a house builder: Crocus Homes. The appellant claims there to be no written agreement on timescales despite the fact that the Joint Delivery Statement they refer to explicitly states when the developer is looking to start on site and that the developer has explicitly confirmed that the site is available, viable and can be delivered at the point envisaged. The developer undertook a further online public consultation on the detail of the development in April 2020 and has confirmed to the authority that a detailed application for the development will be submitted imminently. From May 2020, the development began being marketed for registrations of interest on the developer’s website. The website clearly states that construction is due to start during 2021 with the first homes being available in 2022. The progress detailed above is clearly in line with the agreed Joint Delivery Statement.
Growth Triangle: 20161896 – Since the grant of outline planning permission progress has continued to be made, this includes clearance of the development site and public consultation on the form of the proposed community woodland park. The site is in an attractive and desirable fringe parish within Broadland, around which a number of land sales to housebuilders have been achieved in recent years. As such it is entirely likely that the site would be attractive to the market. As evidenced by the Joint Delivery Statement a professional agent has been brought on board to help progress the site who has confirmed that the site remains available and viable. On this basis it is considered there is clear evidence that housing completions will be achieved on site within 5 years.
Norwich Sites
The four sites identified in the Investigation report within Norwich City Council’s boundary are all sites that are in the Council’s ownership. As such, the City Council has control over the availability and deliverability of each of these sites, which was taken into consideration in determining the likelihood of delivery and inclusion within the 5-year land supply. All four are allocated Local Plan sites, which are also included on the Brownfield Register, and are therefore considered suitable and available. Specifically:
CC3 10-14 Ber Street -. The site is already within the ownership of the City Council and is currently vacant. A statement was completed by the landowner outlining the intention to submit a planning application in 2021 in order to deliver dwellings within the 5-year period.
R2 Norfolk Learning Difficulties Centre, Ipswich Road - A statement was provided by property agent Norfolk Property Consultants Ltd on behalf of the City Council as land owner, outlining current discussions to relocate existing on site uses to facilitate development and an intention for the City Council to develop the site as soon as possible once it becomes vacant.
CC11 –This site is already within the ownership of the City Council and is currently vacant. A statement was completed by the landowner outlining that significant work has been undertaken to investigate feasibility and constraints, with an application expected in 2021. Demolition of the previously existing dwellings was granted permission and has been implemented.
R36 Mile Cross Depot - The site is currently within the ownership of the City Council. The site had permission for demolition of the existing buildings, which took place in 2019. A statement was provided by the landowner outlining that significant preparation works have been undertaken to support the development of this site, including the commissioning of several reports and studies. The statement also includes an intention to seek planning permission in 2020. Since that statement was prepared, Norwich City Council has approved a development option at the Cabinet meeting on 10 June 2020 for a social housing scheme of 150 dwellings with the potential to increase this to up to 200 dwellings.
South Norfolk Sites
Easton: 2014/2611 – this is an allocated site for at least 900 units, with outline permission for 890 dwellings. The Appellants note that the outline application took 23 months to determine. This is not surprising for a major application submitted almost a year before the Local Plan which allocated the site was adopted. Subsequent reserved matters applications will come forward for smaller phases, in line with the outline permission and permitted Design Code. The applicants have also recently re-negotiated the S106 agreement for the site, to raise the affordable housing contribution at the outset and thus avoid potential delays relating to the ‘claw-back’ of affordable housing at a later stage. The first reserved matters application (2020/0962) is currently under consideration for 292 units, which is more than sufficient to deliver the anticipated amount within the land supply period. The development is being taken forward by Persimmon Homes, a developer with a proven track record of quick delivery on large-scale sites across Greater Norwich.
Long Stratton: LNGS1 – Part – whilst this site is indeed dependent on a parallel application which seeks detailed permission for the Long Stratton Bypass, which has support from the DfT for completion of the business case, it should be noted that the current application (2018/0112) is actually hybrid, with the first phase of houses (213 units) being sought in full. The scheme is being taken forward by Norfolk Homes, a developer with a proven track record of delivering medium to large scale sites across Greater Norwich
Ditchingham: 2018/0121 - the appellants state that no reserved matters had been submitted by February 2020, however a reserved matters application was submitted in late 2019 (2019/1925) for a slightly increased number of dwellings. The scheme is being taken forward by Badger Building, a developer with a proven track record of delivering small to medium scale sites across Greater Norwich.
Woodton: WOO1 – whilst it is correct that the outline permission for this site has lapsed, the statement for this site has been completed by FW Properties, who have a particularly strong record in bringing forward smaller, rural Local Plan allocations in South Norfolk, including completed sites at Alpington, Bergh Apton, Brooke, Geldeston and Wreningham, and current sites at Hempnall and Rockland St Mary. FW Properties approach is to go straight to a full detailed application, and completing sites within a couple of years. They have recently added the Woodton site to their website, detailing the presentation given to the Parish Council in November 2019.
Wymondham: WYM1 – This site is owned and promoted by Big Sky Development, a company owned by South Norfolk Council, which understands the importance of the timely delivery of new housing.
Dickleburgh: 2018/0980 – this scheme is for a mix development of accessible units for older people, affordable dwellings and custom-self build units. The first reserved matters and a variation of condition have been sought by developers Heartland PACT and Flagship Housing Developments relating to the affordable units. Evidence from elsewhere in the district, is that self-build plots in rural villages can prove very popular (see 2017/2131 at Bracon Ash, where 14 out of 15 units have secured reserved matters permission within 2 years of the outline being issued).
11. It is noticeable that the appellants are only concerned with sites currently in the land supply, which they now feel should be removed. Further progress has also been made on sites that formed part of the commitment at the base date of the HLS, but which at that time were not included. For example, sites where reserved matters applications have now been submitted and approved (Little Melton, 2017/2843) or are under consideration (Aslacton, 2006/0171; Easton, EAS1, and Wymondham 2014/0799). This should give the inspector further confidence that the land supply will be maintained.
12. As quoted by the appellants, the NPPF glossary definition of deliverable seeks a ‘realistic prospect’ that sites will be delivered within the land supply period. It is considered that the approach of liaising with site promoters on the agreed statements provides the ‘clear evidence’ that the NPPF requires, particularly for those major sites that did not have detailed permission at the time of the assessment. As such, the Greater Norwich approach is still considered to be robust.
13. The appellants also suggest that planning permission for several sites has lapsed, and should not be included. There are, however, numerous inaccuracies in Table 2 which details these sites, as follows:
Broadland Sites:
Phase 4, Blue Boar Lane: 20142051 – As of 1 April 2019 9 of the 75 units on site had been completed. Initial monitoring data shows a further 25 had been completed in the period to 1 April 2020. This is in accordance with the housing land supply statement. The 20142051 application was for the submission of details required by earlier permissions which pre-dated the implementation of CIL in Broadland.
20150262, Former Piggeries, Manor Farm – A process of discharging conditions for the permission has begun and the existing building on site have already been demolished. However, a certificate of lawful use (District Reference 20200490) has been submitted on 11 March 2020. It is accepted therefore that temporarily the status of this permission is uncertain, although it has not been established at this point that the permission is not extant. Should the permission remain extant, it remains entirely reasonable to conclude that a site of 13 homes benefiting from full permission within the attractive Broadland village of Blofield will be completed within the 5 year period.
Land adj. St Mary’s Care Home: 20150991 – Development of this site was begun on 23/04/2018. Monitoring data indicates that the site was recorded as being completed on 17/03/2020. This was ahead of the projected delivery in the 5 year housing land supply forecast. The CIL payment for the site was made on 02/03/2018.
Little Plumstead, Hospital West: 20160808 – As of 1 April 2019 53 of the permitted units had been completed on site. Initial monitoring indicates that a further 30 homes were completed as of 1 April 2020. The remaining 5 homes are all under construction. The CIL payment for the site was made on 08/12/2017.
Norwich Site:
118 Magdalen Road: 10/02009/F – A subsequent Material Amendments application was received in 2014 and this site was commenced and is now largely complete.
South Norfolk Sites
None of these sites have lapsed, all four have commenced construction and were therefore extant at 1 April 2019:
Brooke: 2014/2041 – these are the 11 remaining units of a 13-unit scheme which commenced in 2018/19, the site is under construction by Fallowcroft Homes. Notice of CIL invoicing in 2018 is on the application file on the Council’s website.
Costessey: 2007/1443 – these are the remaining 37 units of a 178-unit scheme by Bovis Homes. Monitoring shows 35 of the remaining 37 units were completed by 31 March 2020. The application pre-dates the implementation of CIL in South Norfolk.
Great Moulton: 2015/2536 – these are the remaining 7 units of a 10-unit scheme. Application 2020/0130 is for reconfiguring part of the site to facilitate four additional affordable exceptions units, in conjunction with Saffron Housing Association.
Wymondham: 2015/1760 - these are the remaining 14 units of a 90-unit scheme by Bovis Homes. Monitoring shows that all 14 units were completed by 31 March 2020. The related outline application pre-dates the implementation of CIL in South Norfolk.
Optimism Bias - Appellants’ 5-YHLS Investigation section 3.0
14. This section appears to be repeating in general terms some of the concerns raised by the appellant about specific sites in their Table 1. As noted above, the Greater Norwich authorities have taken a proportionate approach to the collection of information. All of the sites contained in the five-year land supply are either Local Plan allocations or sites with planning permission, with the relevant viability and deliverability information that supports those processes. Again, the declaration in the joint delivery statements, set out in para. 7 above, is clear regarding the commitment the site promoters are making in terms of confirming site viability, to the best of their knowledge at the time.
15. The Appellant’s Table 3 aims to show ‘optimism bias’ in relation to a small number of specific sites. However, rather than showing ‘optimism bias’, the table actually demonstrates that the Greater Norwich authorities have responded appropriately to the requirements of the NPPF and PPG, by reprofiling sites, including removing some from the land supply, where supporting information is updated or sites fail to progress as anticipated. Table 3 also includes some inaccuracies. The Council would comment as follows:
Brooke: 2014/2041 – as noted above, this site is for 14 units and commenced in 2018/19 as originally anticipated.
Hethersett: 2017/1104 – this site commenced in late 2018/19 and 69 of the 107 units were complete at 31 March 2020, in line with the 2018/19 AMR projections.
Roydon: DIS3 – reprofiled in line with the completed joint delivery statement with one of the Directors of Rackham Builders.
Harleston: HAR4 – reprofiled out of the five-year supply, due to lack of a planning application which had previously be anticipate by the site promoter in 2018.
Wymondham: 2014/0799 - reprofiled out of the five-year supply, due to lack of a reserved matters application, although this has now been submitted (as noted in para 11 above)
Wymondham: 2016/2668 – reprofiled in line with the completed joint delivery statement with Armstrong Rigg Planning.
Blofield Heath 2016/2199 – this is a site with full planning permission in the ownership of a housebuilder. The 1 April 2019 statement reprofiled in line with the advice of the Development Director of Bennett Homes, which updated the advice provided in the previous year.
16. The appellants only highlight sites which have been move back between AMRs, yet several sites have also been brought forward when comparing the 2017/18 and 2018/19 AMRs, these include:
Site No. of Dwellings Forecast start Forecast start 2017/18 AMR 208/19 AMR Aslacton: 2006/0171 15 Post-2026 2024/25 Gillingham: GIL1 22 2023/24 2021/22 Hales: HAL1 20 Post-2026 2021/22 Scole: 2016/0165 18 2023/24 2021/22
Consequently, the Greater Norwich authorities would maintain that overall, the approach taken is proportionate and balanced, and not unduly affected by optimism bias.
Windfall – Appellants 5-YHLS Investigation section 4.0
Windfall
17. The appellants cite a number of reasons why they feel the windfall assumptions made by the Greater Norwich authorities are unrealistic. Principal amongst these is that the windfall assumption is based on past performance, without taking into account likely future trends. This is not entirely accurate. As the Greater Norwich Land Supply Assessment notes (para 22 to 24), the authorities have excluded sites of 10+ units from the windfall assessments in Broadland and South Norfolk; this is precisely because it was felt a long term supply of such sites, which had included a number of brownfield redevelopments in market towns, would be difficult to justify. The Greater Norwich authorities have also taken the cautionary step and removed garden plots, as a potentially declining source of windfall development, when taking into account the requirements of the NPPF; however, in all likelihood some completions will continue to occur through this source.
18. The appellants suggest that evidence from Strategic Housing (and Economic) Land Availability Assessments and Brownfield Registers be used to demonstrate likely windfall; however, this fails to acknowledge that the Broadland and South Norfolk sites are only those of fewer than 10 units, and that even within Norwich a large proportion of windfall is from sites of 1 to 9 dwellings. As such, these would not be picked up individually by a SHELAA, as by their nature, they are not Strategic. Many would also be too small to feature on a Brownfield Register.
19. The Appellant’s note that the Greater Norwich authorities were not able to demonstrate a five-year land supply during the most recent years monitored for windfall and, as such, the windfall rate could potentially be artificially high during those years. This fails to acknowledge two points: (a) that whilst five year land supply sites may have been permitted during those years, that does not necessarily equate to them being completed in those years, and (b) the vast majority of units on sites permitted due to a lack of land supply in Broadland and South Norfolk are on sites of 10+ units, which are excluded from the windfall analysis.
20. Despite ongoing changes to the national Planning regime which potentially make conversions, both of rural/agricultural buildings and of urban office space, more common, the Greater Norwich authorities have not attempted to add an ‘uplift’ for this type of development. Conversely the appellants provide no evidence that office to residential conversions are ‘drying up’, as asserted in their paragraph 4.10.
21. In order to further mitigate against any over assumption of windfall development, the authorities have then discounted past performance by an additional 33% and applied the windfall assumption in a phased manner.
22. Despite fluctuations in trends over time, Appendix D1 of the Greater Norwich Land Supply Assessment shows a broadly consistent level of windfall over a 10-year period. Two of the three authorities show a higher than average windfall in the most recent three years reported, which if anything would suggest that there is an upward trend across Greater Norwich, rather than declining. Despite this, the windfall allowance over five years in the land supply assessment is 681 units, less than 40% of the 1,703 homes that were actually delivered on windfall sites in the five years 2012/13 and 2016/17. It is also notable that the 1,703 home figure itself is an under representation of actual windfall delivery as it excluded delivery on garden plots and larger sites in Broadland and South Norfolk.
23. The Council considers that the approach of looking at past trends in windfall and making adjustments to remove larger sites in more rural areas, remove garden plots and moderate the numbers downwards as part of a generally cautious method, is a completely credible approach. For the reasons set out above it is clear that the estimates of windfall used by the Greater Norwich Authority are, if anything, an underestimate of what is likely to be achieved.
24. The appellants have not attempted to provide an alternative windfall assumption. Instead they suggest that no further windfall will occur during the five-year supply period; this is very much at odds with their assertion that theirs is a ‘conservative’ reassessment of the land supply and in the Council’s opinion is wholly unjustified.
Existing non-major permissions
25. In a similar vain to the partial reassessment of sites, whilst the appellants have critiqued the approach to a windfall allowance, they have not undertaken an assessment of the approach to existing non-major sites. The Council considers that a particularly cautious approach has been taken in this area.
26. The appellants quote the NPPF definition of ‘deliverable’ at paragraph 2.7 of their Investigation report, which notes that:
‘sites which do not involve major development and have planning permission … should be considered deliverable until permission expires’
27. Sites with permission at the base date of the land supply which have the standard time limits, or reduced time limits to incentivise delivery, would not expire within the five-year period. This would be likely to apply to all non-major residential development. As such the Greater Norwich authorities could entirely reasonably include all such permissions in the supply; however, in the spirit of taking a more cautious approach, the Greater Norwich authorities have chosen to discount these sites by 27% to reflect historic trends in renewals, lapses and incomplete sites.
Student Accommodation – Appellants 5-YHLS Investigation section 5.0
28. There is an identified need for Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) in Norwich as outlined in the City Council’s ‘PBSA in Norwich - best practice guidance and advice note’, which was published in November 2019.
29. It is considered self-evident that the rapid increase of PBSA will relieve some pressure on private rented homes. For example, the release of over 700 units of PBSA at St Stephens Towers in a relatively short period of time during 2019 will have had an impact on supply of privately rented accommodation, given their occupation by students who would otherwise have had to consider other options, including the private rented sector. The City Council has been working with Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and student union bodies since the start of 2020 as part of the ‘PBSA Working Group’ to gather more information and monitor trends around PBSA. There is anecdotal information from HEIs and student union bodies themselves of the impact of PBSA on releasing accommodation in the private rented sector. However, it is acknowledged that there is a need to develop further evidence on student accommodation preferences and it is the intention of the City Council to continue to gather evidence on this through the PBSA Working Group.
30. The 2017 SHMA also evidences the fact that PBSA will have a net positive impact on the supply of housing, albeit that it refers to a marginally different ratio to calculate the number of equivalent dwellings provided by PBSA (3:1) compared with that used in the 5-year housing land supply (2.5:1). The ratios used in the current land supply statement by the Greater Norwich authorities are the same as those established in the Housing Delivery Test which was introduced in 2018 subsequent to the publication of the 2017 SHMA. It is considered entirely reasonable to assess the future supply of student accommodation in accordance with the standards adopted by government for the purposes of the HDT.
COVID-19 impact on housing supply
31. In both the introduction and conclusion to the Investigation Report, the appellants have noted that further discounting should be undertaken to reflect the impacts of COVID-19 on the housing market, but without giving any specific details. At present the Council feels that this would be premature as the impacts, particularly beyond the current year, are too uncertain. The Government is in the process of making a number of changes to planning legislation, whilst the wider Government stimulus package has involved measures such as stamp duty relief, to boost the housing market. In appeal decisions issued after ‘lockdown’ was implemented in late March 2020, and as recent as 17 July (see para 6 above), Inspectors have continued to conclude that there is a five-year supply of housing land in Greater Norwich, without suggesting that this needs to be modified or reassessed in any way in response to current circumstances. Similarly, a recent Secretary of State decision concluded, in relation to the appellant’s arguments around the impact of COVID-19 on reducing the local authority’s land supply, that:
‘… as they have not quantified the potential impact or put forward specific evidence about the deliverability of sites, it does not affect his judgment in this case.’ (APP/R3650/W/18/3211033, para 24, 14 May 2020)
The considered reaction of the development industry will no doubt be reflected in the 1 April 2020 land supply assessment, due to be undertaken later this year.
Conclusion – Appellants 5-YHLS Investigation section 6.0
32. Whilst, with the benefit of hindsight, some of the criticisms of the sites in the Greater Norwich Land Supply Assessment may now be justified, this is by no means true of most of the sites listed in the appellants’ Table 1. As such, the reassessment of sites is, in places, both inaccurate and overly pessimistic. In addition, there continues to be progress on applications for sites that existed at the base date, but that weren’t included at that point, but which now give a clear indication of delivery within 5 years. The assessment of lapsed sites in Table 2 is also almost wholly incorrect. The authorities also do not consider that the assessment suffers from ‘optimism bias’. Whilst a small number of sites may move both forwards and backwards in the supply, as circumstances change, the forecast is based on the most up-to-date and credible evidence available.
33. The complete removal of future windfall is considered wholly unrealistic. As has been clearly evidenced, the Greater Norwich authorities have taken a very cautious approach to windfall. In addition, the authorities have also taken a cautious approach to the inclusion of existing non-major permissions, which arguably goes beyond the requirements under the NPPF definition of delivery.
34. The rapid expansion of Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) in Norwich is considered to be relieving the pressure on the private rented sector, and this is supported by the anecdotal evidence of the Norwich PBSA Working Group and is consistent with the findings of the 2007 SHMA. Whilst it is acknowledged that the work of the PBSA group is ongoing, on the evidence available it is clearly justified to take account of the provision of student accommodation as part of the housing land supply assessment. In advance of the outcomes of this working group being known, utilising the government’s own multiplier that is used for the Housing Delivery Test is the most appropriate approach to the assessment of supply.
35. It is therefore clearly the case that the approach and assessment within the Greater Norwich Housing Land Supply Statement remains robust and clearly demonstrates in excess of a 5 year housing land supply.
Broadland District Council July 2020
Appendix E – Suggested Conditions should appeal be allowed
The below conditions will be in addition to any conditions suggested by the Highway Authority who are commenting on this appeal separately.
1. Application for approval of ALL "reserved matters" must be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than the expiry of THREE YEARS from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted must be begun in accordance with the "reserved matters" as approved not later than the expiration of TWO YEARS from either, the final approval of the reserved matters, or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such reserved matter to be approved.
Reason for the condition:
Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. Application for the approval of the "reserved matters" shall include plans and descriptions of :
1) the details of the layout;
2) the scale of each building proposed
3) the appearance of all buildings including details of the type and colour of the materials to be used in their construction;
4) the landscaping of the site.
Approval of these "reserved matters" must be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any development is commenced and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason for the condition:
For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site in accordance with the specified approved plans, as required by the Spatial Vision and Spatial Planning Objectives of the Joint Core Strategy.
3 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the application form, plans and drawings and other documents and details received as listed below.
Reason for the condition: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site in accordance with the specified approved plans, as required by the Spatial Vision and Spatial Planning Objectives of the Joint Core Strategy and the Broadland Development Management DPD 2015.
4. Concurrently with the submission of the Reserved Matters application, a phasing plan, setting out the phasing of the proposed development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved phasing plan.
Reason for condition:
To facilitate the self-build development proposed in accordance with paragraph 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.
5. Concurrently with the submission of the Reserved Matters application, full details of the means of surface water drainage shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The details should include the results from percolation tests if appropriate and incorporate installation of water efficiency and water saving devices such as rain saver systems. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings and shall be retained as such thereafter.
It should be noted that it is the applicants / developers / owners responsibility to ensure adequate drainage of the site so as not to adversely affect surrounding land, property or highway.
Reason for the condition:
To minimise the possibilities of flooding in accordance with Policy CSU5 of the Broadland Development Management DPD 2015.
6. No foul drainage from the development hereby approved shall be discharged other than to the main sewer. The foul water disposal shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings and retained as such thereafter.
Reason for the condition:
To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy CSU5 of the Broadland Development Management DPD 2015.
7. In the event that contamination that was not previously identified is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. All development shall cease and shall not recommence until :
1) a report has been submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority which includes results of an investigation and risk assessment together with proposed remediation scheme to deal with the risk identified and 2) the agreed remediation scheme has been carried out and a validation report demonstrating its effectiveness has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason for the condition:
To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy EN4 of the Broadland Development Management DPD 2015.
8. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with the Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement, submitted as part of the Arboricultural Impact Assessment, received 17 May 2019.
Reason for the condition:
To ensure existing trees are protected during site works in the interests of the visual amenity of the area and the satisfactory appearance of the development in accordance with Policies GC4 and EN2 of the Broadland Development Management DPD 2015.
9. Concurrently with the submission of the Reserved Matters Application, a scheme detailing the provision of sparrow terrace boxes (one to be installed on each dwelling) and bat boxes and small passerine nest boxes within the mature trees on the southern boundary of the site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved bat boxes and small passerine nest boxes shall then be installed prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved and each sparrow terrace box shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the respective dwelling that it is to be sited on.
Reason for the condition:
To provide ecological mitigation and enhancements on the site in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Development Management DPD 2015.
10. Aside from any parts required to be removed to provide the visibility splays at the entrance of the site, the existing mixed native hedgerow along the southern boundary of the site (as identified on the Tree Protection Plan - attached as Appendix 4 of the Arboricultural Impact Assessment) shall be retained.
If within a period of TEN YEARS from the date of the decision the hedge dies, [or becomes in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective] a replacement hedge of similar species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.
Reason for the condition: In the interests of the satisfactory appearance of the development in accordance with Policies GC4 and EN2 of the Broadland Development Management DPD 2015 and the aims of the Halvergate and Tunstall Conservation Area Appraisal.