Land at Town Road, Cliffe Woods, Kent, Me3 8Jl Application Ref: Mc/16/3669
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Our ref: APP/A2280/W/17/3175461 Tim Booth Your ref: PP-05441858 Gladman Developments Ltd Gladman House Alexandria Way Congleton Business Park Congleton 8 November 2018 Cheshire CW12 1LB Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY GLADMAN DEVELOPMENTS LTD LAND AT TOWN ROAD, CLIFFE WOODS, KENT, ME3 8JL APPLICATION REF: MC/16/3669 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of Matthew Nunn BA BPL LLB LLM BCL MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry on 28, 29 and 30 November, and on 5 and 6 December 2017 into your appeal against the decision of Medway Council to refuse your application for outline planning permission for up to 225 residential dwellings (including up to 25% affordable housing), introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space and children’s play area, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation, vehicular access point from Town Road and associated ancillary works; all matters to be reserved with the exception of the main site access, in accordance with application ref: MC/16/3669, dated 31 August 2016. 2. On 13 September 2017, this appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed, and outline planning permission granted subject to conditions. 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. He has decided to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Tel: 0303 444 1624 Maria Stasiak, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Matters arising since the close of the inquiry 5. On 28 June 2018, the Secretary of State wrote to parties to afford them an opportunity to make representations on the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-323/17 People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta of 12 April 2018. 6. On 27 July 2018, the Secretary of State wrote to parties giving them the opportunity to make representations on the revised National Planning Policy Framework, published on 24 July 2018. 7. A list of representations which have been received since the inquiry is at Annex A. Copies of these letters may be obtained on written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. 8. On 26 October 2018, Government published “Technical consultation on updates to national planning policy and guidance”, dealing with the calculation of local housing need and other matters, including the People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta issue. While a number of the issues dealt with in that document are relevant to this case, given these remain the subject of consultation and may not be the final position, the Secretary of State has made his decision here based on existing policy. Policy and statutory considerations 9. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 10.In this case the development plan consists of the saved policies of the Medway Local Plan, adopted May 2003. The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies of most relevance to this case are those set out at IR14-17. 11.Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning guidance (‘the Guidance’). The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published on 24 July 2018, and unless otherwise specified, any references to the Framework in this letter are to the revised Framework. Emerging plan 12.The Secretary of State notes that the Council is currently preparing a new Local Plan, and a Neighbourhood Plan is at a very early stage. He further notes that no draft policies have yet been published for either. 13.Paragraph 48 of the Framework states that decision makers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: (1) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan; (2) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies in the emerging plan; and (3) the degree of consistency of relevant policies to the policies in the Framework. Given their very early stage of development the Secretary of State takes the view that no weight can be attributed to either of these emerging plans. 2 Main issues Five-year housing land supply 14.The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the Inspector’s analysis of the five-year housing land supply at IR93 which reports that the parties do not dispute that the Council cannot demonstrate a deliverable 5 year supply of housing, and that the appellant believes it to be no better than 2.75 years, with the Council claiming it to be around 3 years. 15.However, as the Local Plan was adopted in 2003, the adopted housing requirement figure is more than 5 years old. Paragraph 73 of the Framework indicates that in that scenario, local housing need should be applied. The Secretary of State has applied the standard method set out in guidance, and has concluded that local housing need for Medway is 1,310. 16.He notes that under paragraph 73 of the Framework, a 20% buffer should apply where there has been significant under-delivery of housing over the previous three years. He further notes that the most recent Monitoring Report before the inquiry (December 2016) (IR23) shows that in 2015-16, there were 553 completions against a requirement of 1,000 dwellings. He considers that this is significant under-delivery. The Secretary of State has taken into account the fact that no evidence has been put forward in response to his reference back letter of 27 July 2018 to suggest that Medway (which accepted that it was a 20% authority under the old Framework – IR23) is not a 20% authority under the provisions of the revised Framework. He therefore considers that a 20% buffer should be applied. This gives an annual requirement of 1,572 dwellings. The Secretary of State further notes that no party has suggested in representations that the assessment of housing supply should change as a result of the change in definition of ‘deliverable’ in the revised Framework. Overall he considers that there is a housing land supply of 3.9-4.3 years. 17.While this means that the shortfall in housing land supply has reduced since the inquiry, there is still not a 5-year housing land supply. The Secretary of State considers that his conclusions on housing land supply do not alter the weight he assigns to the matters set out below, or his decision on the case as a whole. For this reason, he does not consider that it is necessary to refer back to parties on this matter before reaching his decision. Locational accessibility 18.The Secretary of State notes that the site is located close to the village of Cliffe Woods which has a range of shops, services and community facilities (IR101). He agrees with the Inspector (IR109) that residents are likely to travel further afield for larger food supermarkets, specialist shops, leisure, employment, and secondary schools, and that this is likely to generate trips by car. 19.The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s analysis of available public transport (IR102-104). He has taken into account that bus services do not operate in the very early morning or after early evening, that cycling is not a realistic option for most or an attractive option, and that the nearest train station is 2km away. He has further taken into account the proposals to improve accessibility of the scheme (IR105-7), and whilst he agrees that the proposed measures will go some 3 way to facilitating sustainable travel modes, given the uncertainty around the operation of the ‘Arriva Click’ service (IR106) he gives these measures limited weight. 20.The Secretary of State has further taken into account the Framework’s statement in paragraph 103 that the opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and he agrees with the Inspector that given the rural character of the area, a realistic approach to the general travel method of residents is required (IR109). However, in the Secretary of State’s judgement, the proposed development does not limit the need to travel or offer a genuine choice of transport modes, and is therefore in conflict with the Framework’s policy on promoting sustainable transport (paragraph 103 of the Framework). His concerns are not overcome by the proposed mitigation. He therefore disagrees with the Inspector’s conclusion that there is no intrinsic conflict with the requirement of Policy BNE25 that development should ‘offer a realistic chance of access by a range of transport modes’ (IR110). The Secretary of State considers that these conflicts carry substantial weight against the proposal. 21.The Secretary of State agrees that by introducing new market and affordable housing along with the associated economic benefits, the proposal would comply with paragraphs 83-84 of the Framework, which advocate supporting a prosperous rural economy.