DILWORTH LANE, LONGRIDGE
Report: Planning Statement Prepared by: Turley Date: 06 June 2014
Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. The Application Site and Surroundings 4
3. Background to the Application 8
4. The Development Proposals 12
5. Planning Policy Context 15
6. Planning Appraisal 31
7. The Planning Balance and Conclusions 47
Appendix 1: EIA Screening Opinion 49
Appendix 2: Scope of submission 53
Appendix 3: Site Location Plan 56
Appendix 4: Core Strategy Option 1D 57
Appendix 5: Core Strategy Option 2D 58
Appendix 6: Draft Heads of Terms 59
Appendix 7: Inspectors Letter (Nov 2012) 60
Appendix 8: Inspectors Letter (Jan 2014) 61
Appendix 9: Planning Committee Report May 2014 62
Appendix 10: SHLAA Site Proforma 63
Appendix 11: Turley Housing Land Supply Analysis 64
Appendix 12: Affordable Housing Statement 65
Contact Greg Dickson [email protected] Client Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd
June 2014
1. Introduction
1.1 This Planning Statement has been prepared by Turley on behalf of Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd (North West) in support of its outline planning application for residential development on land to the north of Dilworth Lane, Longridge:
“Outline planning application for the development of land for the erection of up to no. 220 dwellings with all matters reserved, save for access.”
1.2 This statement sets out the context for the development by providing the background to the proposals including a description of the site and its surroundings, the proposed development and the relevant up-to-date policy framework. It then assesses the proposals against the identified policy framework and the key material considerations and sets out the case in support of the proposed development.
Structure
1.3 The statement is structured in the following way:
• Section 2: describes the application site and its surroundings • Section 3: sets out the background to the application • Section 4: describes the development proposals • Section 5: summarises relevant planning policy considerations, and in so doing considers the weight to be attributed to relevant policies of the Development Plan; • Section 6: appraises the proposals against relevant planning policy and other material considerations • Section 7: sets out a summary of the report and concludes that planning permission should be granted for the development.
Overview of Case
1.4 The statement demonstrates that:
• The proposals are in accordance with the overall strategy, and strategic, design and technical policies of the adopted Local Plan, as far as they are relevant to the proposals;
• The proposals conflict with adopted Local Plan in respect of its location outside the defined settlement boundary of Longridge, and within the open countryside. However, those boundaries are manifestly out of date since they no longer reflect current circumstances or cater for existing and future housing needs, those policies, and indeed other policies relating to housing development within the adopted Local Plan, are clearly out-of-date and inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (‘The Framework’) and the weight to be attributed is therefore limited. This conclusion is supported by case law and a number of recent local appeal decisions (including by the Secretary of State);
• Despite its recent assertions to the contrary, the LPA is unable to robustly demonstrate a deliverable 5-year land supply of housing and hence the
1 aforementioned policies are also not up-to-date having regard to policy in the Framework and the emphasis upon meeting needs and boosting significantly the supply of housing;
• The presumption in favour of sustainable development (second limb, second bullet of paragraph 14 of the Framework) is therefore engaged (whether or not a 5 year housing supply is proven);
• The development accords with the principles of sustainable development as set out in the Framework and there are no policies in the Framework that would militate a refusal of planning permission;
• Other material considerations in the form of Ministerial Statements, and the emerging Local Plan clearly support a grant of planning permission in this instance;
• Whilst the proposals are contrary to certain policies of the Development Plan, substantial and significant material considerations (as summarised above) far outweigh this conflict, which ought to be afforded limited weight in the planning balance.
1.6 In summary, the planning application demonstrates that the proposal will:
• make a valuable contribution to meeting the Borough’s housing needs, and those of Longridge specifically, including within the first 5 years. The residual need for over 620 new homes in Longridge, which cannot be accommodated without expansion of its settlement boundaries, is recognised in the emerging Local Plan. This statement confirms that there is also a deficit in the Borough’s 5 year housing supply;
• create a high quality residential environment which respects the character of Longridge;
• deliver a mix of housing types and sizes to meet the strategic needs of the local housing market, including family housing and older peoples’ accommodation;
• provide much needed affordable housing, at a level consistent with established and emerging policy;
• deliver housing development in a highly sustainable location;
• provide new public open space, including a Locally Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) and community orchard, and a high quality landscape setting;
• provide ecological enhancement opportunities;
• integrate with its setting and surroundings, employing sound design principles and ensuring the amenity of adjoining residents is respected;
• provide safe access arrangements, with its traffic capable of being accommodated on the local highway network;
2 • support sustainable social and economic development by providing a number of local employment opportunities during the construction phase and working with local schools and other agencies to establish apprenticeships for local people;
• will incorporate enhancements to the building fabric and services which will reduce the lifetime energy consumption of the development by 14.6% over the current Building Regulations Standards; and
• Generate New Homes Bonus payments to further invest back into the Longridge community.
Need for Environmental Impact Assessment
1.7 A pre-application screening request was made to the local planning authority under Regulation 5 of the Town and Country (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and an opinion given on 24 April 2014. In this, the authority confirms that the proposed development is not EIA development and would not be likely to have a significant effect on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size and location. As such, the production of an Environmental Statement has not been necessary.
1.8 The Council’s EIA Screening Opinion is enclosed at Appendix 1.
Accompanying Documents
1.9 The scope of the application submission was agreed through an exchange of emails with planning officers at Ribble Valley Borough Council on 29 April 2014.
1.10 As noted above, this report is submitted alongside a comprehensive suite of other application documents including plans, strategies and technical assessments which, together, comprise the planning application submission. These other documents are listed in Appendix 2.
1.11 Whilst this report summarises the key elements and findings of those other application documents it is important that the application submission be read as a whole.
3 2. The Application Site and Surroundings
Location
2.1 The application site at Dilworth Lane is a highly sustainable location, lying on the eastern edge of the built up area of Longridge. It lies c.9.5km north east of Preston, c.12km north west of Blackburn and c.15km south west of Clitheroe.
2.2 The expansion of Longridge increased following the development of the railway link to Preston in 1840 which was established to carry the stone from Longridge’s quarries. This in turn led to the opening of several cotton mills and the town grew considerably larger from the mid-19th century. The Spade Mill Reservoirs and two Alston Reservoirs have a close association with the town and are prominent artificial features in the landscape.
2.3 In summary, Longridge has grown to become one of the largest and most sustainable settlements in the Borough. Ribble Valley Borough Council has identified it in the emerging Core Strategy as one of three key service centres (alongside Whalley and Clitheroe) and as being suitable and appropriate for accommodating new development.
The Site
2.4 The application site principally comprises a parcel of open grassland and measures 10.02ha in area. It is situated to the north of Dilworth Lane and Blackburn Road and is located immediately adjacent to the eastern extent of the existing urban area of Longridge, and is bordered by existing development to the north, west and south – it is accordingly well related to the existing settlement and development will integrate well with it.
2.5 The site is bordered to the south by Dilworth Lane, Dilworth House and Blackburn Road. The western area of the site is bound by the rear gardens of adjacent residential properties on Dilworth Lane and Higher Road. To the north, the site boundary is primarily an existing hedge line. The extent of the area to which the application relates is shown at Figure 1 overleaf and on the Site Location Plan at Appendix 3
4
Figure 2.1: Site Location Plan
2.6 A number of mature trees and hedgerows are located on the proposed development site and around its boundaries.
2.7 With regard to topography, the site slopes gently, with an approximate elevation of 124m AOD along the northern boundary of the site and a low spot of 114m along the south eastern boundary at the junction of Tan Yard Lane and Blackburn Road. The northern part of the site is topographically challenging and it is proposed that it will remain open.
2.8 The application site is located entirely within Flood Zone 1 as indicated on the Environment Agency flood map. The site is not located within or adjacent to a Conservation Area and contains no listed buildings. There are no listed buildings nearby. Similarly the site does not form part of any statutory or non-statutory ecological or wildlife designation.
Surrounding Area
2.9 The surrounding area comprises a mix in character and uses; however majority of the land use is designated for residential purposes. Located to the north of the proposed development site, is the public footpath (PROW Path No. 36) of Tan Yard Lane, beyond which lies Hagan’s Leisure Group Caravan Park. A number of static caravans are provided on site, along with pitches for touring caravans and tents. The site also has an indoor heated swimming pool, small convenience retail unit and a bar.
2.10 Running along the eastern boundary of the site is the Bridle Way (Bridle Way no. 35) of Tan Yard Lane, situated beyond this are the Spade Mill Reservoirs. Consisting of two separate bodies of water, the reservoirs have paths located around their perimeters and are home to both the Spade Mill Angling Club and Spade Mill Sailing Club. These are obvious manmade structures which contain the application site on its eastern boundary.
5 2.11 Dilworth Lane (B5269) represents the southern boundary of the site and is the main route from Longridge towards Blackburn. It passes Dilworth House which is a large detached property dating from the 1800’s and there are other older properties located opposite, such as Gardeners Cottage. Dilworth House is not a listed building and should not be treated as a non-designated heritage asset.
2.12 Beyond Dilworth Lane lies existing and newly constructed housing (between Dilworth Lane and Lower Lane), and to the south east mainly open agricultural land. Located c.300m to the south east of the site is Higher College Farm and Hillside Specialist School.
2.13 The existing urban area of Longridge comprises the northern, south western and western boundary of the site. Located in a linear manner along Dilworth Lane are predominantly detached residential houses and bungalows, the majority of which date to post 1970s. Similarly the majority of development along Higher Road date back to the 1960s and 70s, with a small number of properties built in the 1800s. Continuing west along Dilworth Lane and moving towards the centre of Longridge, the land use is principally residential, however the density and age of the properties generally increases, with most properties pre-dating 1893.
2.14 The site lies within easy walking distance (400m) of the centre of Longridge, clustered along Berry Lane and King Street. Within the centre of Longridge are a number of commercial, retail and leisure uses. This includes representation from HSBC, Lloyd’s Pharmacy, The Co-operative, Halifax and a number of independent retailers and service providers. Furthermore, there are also a number of primary schools and nurseries located in and around Longridge, with the nearest being Longridge Church of England Primary School, situated c.500m from the proposed development site.
Accessibility
2.15 The application site is served by Dilworth Lane (B5269), which feeds off Blackburn Road (B6243) to the east and Lower Lane (B6243) to the south. The B5269 continues to the west, connecting to Whittingham Road, Whittingham and eventually junction 32 of the M6 and M55, located c.7.4km from the proposed development site.
2.16 The site is accessible on foot to the existing local housing areas, located immediately the west of the site. This area is linked to the site via a street-lit road side footpath, running along the northern side of Dilworth Lane.
2.17 The site is readily accessible by public transport. Bus stops are located on Berry Lane and King Street, providing regular services to many of the surrounding areas including Preston, Ribbleton, Whittingham, Blackburn and Clitheroe. Further details of the site’s accessibility can be found in the Transport Assessment.
Summary
2.18 The application site is situated in a sustainable location for residential development, located immediately adjacent to the eastern edge of Longridge and adjoining established residential areas. It is within short distance of the town centre and local
6 schools. It is also within 400m of the nearest bus stop providing wider access to jobs, shops and services in Preston, Clitheroe and Blackburn.
2.19 Although the site is presently undeveloped, the area forms a natural and harmonious extension to the settlement boundary, contained by existing residential development and large scale infrastructure.
7 3. Background to the Application
3.1 An understanding of the planning history of the site and surroundings and representations submitted in connection with the emerging development plan process provides relevant context for the application.
Planning History
Application Site 3.2 A review of the Council’s online planning register has identified no relevant planning applications for the site.
Nearby Land 3.3 A full planning application for the residential development of the land bound by Dilworth Land and Lower Lane (known locally as ‘Dilworth Triangle and situated to the immediate south of the application site) was considered by the Council’s Planning Committee in November 2011 (LPA ref: 3/2011/0541). The proposed scheme comprises the erection of 49 dwellings and associated access and infrastructure. The Committee resolved to grant permission subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement.
3.4 The Officer’s report to Committee confirms that the application is acceptable for the following reasons:
• The site is located on the edge of the urban area adjacent to existing residential development, although the development of this site would extend built form beyond the defined settlement boundary; it sought to infill an area of grassland between the settlement boundary and dwellings at the junction of Lower Lane/Dilworth Lane. In visual terms the officer’s report notes that the site is well contained by existing residential development.
• Through the use of a traffic calming scheme, the officer’s report concludes that the development of the site can be sustainable and acceptable in terms of traffic and highway safety.
• With regard to the developments impact on residential amenity of the surrounding dwellings, the officer’s report notes that the considerable separation distances render the residential development acceptable throughout the site.
• The Ecological Survey and Habitat Survey, which accompanied the application, identified no reasons to prevent the site being developed for residential purposes. Furthermore, the officer’s report confirms that there is no justifiable reason to withhold consent on ecological grounds.
• As of October 2011, it was identified that Ribble Valley Borough Council had 3.3 years deliverable supply of housing, the officer’s report concluded that this development would contribute towards meeting the Borough’s housing requirement. Planning permission was granted on 5th April 2012 and the development is nearing completion on site.
8 Development Plan Representations
3.5 Early consultation on the Ribble Valley Core Strategy sought views on the proposed development strategies for the Borough, focusing development in either the three services centres of Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley; specifically in Longridge or in the strategic release of sites that can accommodate high levels of development.
3.6 The application site and surrounding land at Dilworth Lane was identified by Option 1D (enclosed at Appendix 4) and 2D (Enclosed at Appendix 5) as a strategic development area for Longridge. In terms of suitability, the consideration of the options for Longridge confirmed that the land at land at Dilworth Lane / Lower Lane is:
“…predominantly flat in terms of its topography, and it rises gently uphill. It is situated close to a reservoir and would extend the existing settlement boundary eastwards. The area is closely related to the settlement and could accommodate all the necessary development required under the Development Strategy option.” (emphasis added)
3.7 Several representations have been submitted on behalf of Taylor Wimpey to the various stages of the Ribble Valley Core Strategy process in relation to the need for housing (and quantum of such) over the Plan period; the role of Longridge in accommodating new housing development; and specifically in support of residential development on the application site and land to the north.
3.8 The representations demonstrate the role the site has to play in relation to meeting the Vision and Strategic Objectives of the Core Strategy. In particular the site plays an important role in supporting the social and economic growth of Longridge through the provision of much needed market and family housing; as one of the three Key Service Centres the sustainable growth of Longridge is at the heart of the strategic vision for the Ribble Valley.
3.9 More recent representations contended that the Core Strategy was understating the quantum of housing required to meet needs within the Borough. They also reinforced the importance of new housing development as a key component of economic growth, including the need to provide increased quantum and quality of family housing in Longridge. This is discussed in more detail at section 4 of this statement.
3.10 Representations submitted to the Submission Draft Core Strategy consultation focused specifically on the physical and spatial characteristics of the site and the adjacent land to the north. The representations demonstrated that the site (and the adjacent land) has few constraints, is in a well-located part of Longridge distant from the Area of Outstanding Beauty (ANOB), aligns well with the policies and principles of the emerging Core Strategy, and could accommodate a high quality residential development.
3.11 It is, therefore, of scale that could make a vital contribution to meeting unfulfilled and future housing needs in a sustainable location, in the short to medium term.
9 Pre-Application Consultation
3.12 Pre-application meetings have been held with Officers from RVBC Planning and Lancashire County Council Highways to establish co-operation and consistency through the preparation, negotiation and determination of this planning application.
3.13 From Spring 2014, pre-application meetings have been held with the LPA to discuss the evolution of the scheme and to agree the scope of the planning application submission. The proposals which form this application are the product of considerable discussion with officers of the LPA, particularly in terms of the urban design principles, proposed access arrangements, provision of open space and tree protection.
Consultation Process
3.14 An integral part of the development proposals has been the commitment from Taylor Wimpey to inform and consult with the local stakeholder and the public.
3.15 Overall, a group of around 2500 stakeholders, tenants and residents were identified and notified of the application proposals. Following this, a dedicated website (www.taylorwimpey.co.uk/longridge/) on the proposals was launched in April 2014.
3.16 The consultation consisted of two stages. Stage 1 shared Taylor Wimpey’s thinking on the principles of development for the proposed masterplan, while Stage 2 sought views on the preferred masterplan and explained the changes that had been made as a consequence of Stage 1.
3.17 Public exhibitions on the application proposals took place at the The Old Station (Longridge), on following dates:
(a) Stage 1 – Monday 14th April 2014 (b) Stage 2 – Thursday 29th May 2014
Stage 1 Public Consultation Event
3.18 Local Councillors, stakeholders, tenants and residents were formally invited by letter to attend the Stage 1 Consultation Event. The purpose of the Stage 1 exhibition was to provide information to attendees on Taylor Wimpey’s thinking on the principles of development and enable them to ask questions of the development team.
3.19 The design team were involved in the preparation of information boards which displayed the proposals. Questionnaires were also made available to ensure that those in attendance could make comment on Taylor Wimpey’s initial thoughts.
3.20 In addition to the comments received at the event, details of the consultation hotline, email address and text messaging service were provided to enable the public to continue to make direct comments on scheme proposals.
10 Consultation with Longridge C of E Primary School
3.21 As part of Taylor Wimpey’s wide ranging consultation strategy, a ‘play workshop’ was carried out with Year 4 pupils at Longridge C of E Primary School on 2nd May.
3.22 The findings gathered will be used to influence the design of the play areas that will form part of the scheme at Dilworth Lane.
Stage 2 Public Consultation Event
3.23 This consultation stage also provided feedback on how the comments given throughout the first event had been incorporated into the design process. Where ideas were not able to be taken on board, this was explained as part of the event.
3.24 The consultation events for the project as a whole were deemed a success. Information about the scheme reached a wide audience including the local educational community, local council members, neighbouring residents, and residents further afield in the borough. People welcomed the opportunity to discuss and clarify the various aspects of the proposals, and the development team have been able to respond to local knowledge on the detailed particulars of the scheme.
3.25 For more information on the consultation undertaken, please refer to the Statement of Community Involvement document which accompanies the planning submission.
11 4. The Development Proposals
4.1 The application is made in outline for up to 220 residential dwellings, with all detailed matters reserved for future approval with the exception of means of access from the adopted highway.
4.2 The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement which sets out a broad Development Framework and provides a ‘structure’ to ensure that identified design principles of local character, quality and sustainability are carried through, ultimately to detailed design. The Parameters Plan which is reflective of this Development Framework forms part of the application and it is proposed this would be tied to the grant of planning permission by condition, alongside the detailed access plan.
4.3 The illustrative masterplan shows how the site could be developed under the guidance of the Development Framework and in accordance with the Parameters Plan. The masterplan shows the retention and enhancement of existing trees and hedgerows as well as the creation of new open space, community orchard and pedestrian/cycle routes connecting the site to the wider areas of Longridge.
House Types
4.4 The indicative development mix comprises 4 bed family houses (approx. 30-45%) together with a modest element of smaller 2 bed (5-20%) and 3 bed (40-55%) houses and apartments. This mix of housing reflects the strong market demand for larger homes identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2013) and also the requirements for affordable homes across all tenures.
4.5 The application development will comprise predominantly of two-storey dwellings, in order to reflect the character of the locality. Bungalows and 2.5 storey are also proposed to add variety and interest to the street scene.
Affordable Housing
4.6 In accordance with the emerging Core Strategy and in response to the need identified within the Central Lancashire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2013), the site is to provide for 30% affordable housing in site. The precise tenure split of the affordable dwellings, arrangements for their delivery, and the mechanisms to ensure that those dwellings remain affordable in the longer term will be dealt with in a S106 Agreement.
4.7 The development will also provide on-site open space, equipped play space, informal recreation areas, a community orchard, measures to improve sustainable transport and a travel plan. Full details of the proposed draft Heads of Terms are provided at Appendix 6 to this Statement.
12 Access and Parking
4.8 Vehicular access to the site will be via a single access point from the south eastern corner of the application site onto Blackburn Road Lane. Full details of the proposed site access are included as part of this application submission and are set out within submitted plans also contained in the Transport Assessment.
4.9 Those details demonstrate how Blackburn Road will accommodate a new access / egress into the application site. Locating the site access in this location reduces the impact on the existing trees and hedgerows situated along frontage to Dilworth Lane and Blackburn Road.
4.10 New footways will be provided within the limits of the site boundary along the frontage of Dilworth Lane and Blackburn Road. A network of cycleways and pedestrian footways are also proposed throughout the masterplan area and will provide safe and convenient access to areas of public open space within the site. The proposed cycle routes will provide safe connections with Dilworth Lane to the west and Blackburn Road to the east and beyond.
4.11 The site will provide comprehensive vehicle, cycle and pedestrian connections both within and beyond the site boundary helping to ensure that the development is readily accessible for all and integrates well into its surroundings.
4.12 New bus stops are also proposed along Blackburn Road to ensure that the public transport network will be attractive to all residents of the development.
Layout
4.13 The illustrative masterplan demonstrates how a development of around 220 dwellings can be accommodated on the site. The masterplan has evolved taking into account the site’s existing landscape features and seeks to integrate them successfully into the overall design, making use of the best environmental assets.
4.14 The Design and Access Statement confirms that individual character areas will be created within the site to ensure that the development sits comfortably with the surroundings and creates a sense of place.
4.15 The area to the west of the site is to be laid out to deliver a medium density urban grain reflecting proximity to existing development and the town centre. It is proposed that the housing will comprise a proportion of bungalows which will be located to the rear of the existing residential properties on Dilworth Lane. This will ensure that the privacy and security of the existing properties is retained.
4.16 It is proposed that the land the east of Dilworth Lodge, the Dilworth Lane frontage and eastern edge of the site will be designed to create an attractive introduction to the town. The area will have an ‘edge of town’ character and will include a new entrance green at the south east corner of the site. Buildings will be arranged in a less formal arrangement and are proposed to be at a lower density than the areas to the west.
13 4.17 The central part of the site is to provide for medium density mixed family housing arranged around a series of courtyards and small cul-de-sacs to improve safety and security.
Open Space and Landscaping
4.18 The layout of the site has been designed to reflect the site’s topography and to retain, as far as possible, the existing landscape features, including the ponds, trees and hedgerows.
4.19 The development will include c.3.1 ha of informal public open space creating an attractive setting for the development and providing opportunities for casual recreation. The proposed public open space will form a green corridor from the eastern edge along Tan Yard Lane to the ‘village green’ at the centre of the site, encompassing the existing trees and hedgerows. A Local Equipped Area for Play is to be provided.
14 5. Planning Policy Context
5.1 In accordance with the provision of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, this application falls to be considered against the provisions of the adopted Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
5.2 In this case the Development Plan comprises the saved policies of the Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan (‘DLP’) (1998) and the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2009 and 2013).
5.3 Other material planning policy considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework (“The Framework”) (2012). The replacement local plan ‘Ribble Valley Core Strategy: A Local Plan for Ribble Valley’ is emerging and has reached Examination stage.
5.4 Presented below is a summary of the key policy messages. In so doing, an appraisal of the weight to be applied to the relevant policies of the Development Plan is undertaken, by reference to the Framework, case law and recent appeal decisions. This sets an important context for the planning appraisal and conclusion on planning balance that follows in Section 6 and 7.
The National Planning Policy Framework
5.5 The Framework was published by DCLG in March 2012. It sets out the Government’s policies and how these are expected to be positively and pro-actively applied to deliver sustainable economic growth and housing to meet identified objectively assessed needs.
5.6 The Framework endorses the merits of a plan-led system and is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.
Achieving Sustainable Development
5.7 A key objective of the Framework is to achieve sustainable development: it is the ’golden thread’ running through the document. It identifies the three aspects of achieving sustainable development, i.e. economic, social and environmental considerations, and advises that these are interdependent and should not be treated in isolation in the consideration of planning issues.
5.8 As a material consideration in the determination of planning applications, Paragraph 14 of the Framework achieves this by establishing a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. For decision-taking this means;
• approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay, and;
• where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out‑of‑date, granting permission unless:
15 • any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted.
5.9 The Framework also makes it clear that for development plan policies to be afforded full decision-making weight (for the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) they must be up to date, i.e. prepared in accordance with the 2004 Act and consistent with the Framework, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
5.10 For those authorities reliant upon the saved policies of old-style 1990 Act development plans, Paragraph 215 of the Framework states;
“……due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework.”
5.11 In other words, the closer the saved policies of an old-style plan are to the policies of the Framework, the greater weight they may be given in the decision-making process and planning balance. As the strategic development policies of the development plan for Ribble Valley are now time-expired and out of date (as explained below), this will lessen their weight and substantially increase the weight to be given to the Framework in the determination of this planning application.
5.12 The Framework also allows weight to be afforded to emerging development plans according to their stage of preparation and the number of unresolved objections.
Delivering Sustainable Development
5.13 The Framework sets out 12 Core Planning Principles underpinning plan-making and decision-taking. These are intended to shape and influence the sustainable attributes of plan-making, but are also aimed at the process, requiring planning to;
• not simply be about scrutiny, but to be a creative exercise finding ways to enhance and improve places; • proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, development and places the country needs.
5.14 The remainder of the Framework contains thematic chapters mirroring the subject areas of former Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG), but setting a basis for the evaluation of sustainable development and providing a clear means of ‘testing’ proposals against the second limb, second bullet of Paragraph 14. Of relevance to the proposed development, it requires planning authorities to;
• help achieve economic growth by proactively supporting an economy fit for the 21st century to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable development (Paragraph 20);
• significantly boost the supply of housing by inter alia annually identifying a 5-year supply of deliverable sites, with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from
16 later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition. Authorities, such as RVBC, with a persistent record of under-delivery should provide a 20% buffer. Local plan policies relevant to the supply of housing (i.e. not just housing policies, but those that are relevant to housing supply) should not be considered up-to- date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a deliverable five-year supply of sites. Paragraph 52 notes that; “the supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as……extensions to existing villages and towns”;
• seek high quality and inclusive design (Paragraph 57);
• promote sustainable transport and only refuse development where the residual cumulative impacts are severe (Paragraph 32);
• promote healthy communities (Paragraph 69);
• help meet the challenge of climate change and the move to a low carbon future (Paragraph 93 and 94);
• conserve the natural and historic environment (Paragraph 109 and 126);
• safeguard non-renewable resources, such as minerals, where it is reasonable and practical to do so without environmental impact;
• ensure that housing assessments take full account of relevant market and economic signals (paragraph 158) as well have a clear understanding of the objectively assessed housing needs in their area (paragraph 159).
5.15 On this basis, the relevant development plan policies are summarised below.
Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan (1998)
5.16 The adopted development plan for Ribble Valley comprises the saved policies of the Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan (‘DLP’). It was prepared over a lengthy time-period and has a timeframe of 1991 – 2006.
5.17 In accordance with the strategic policies pertaining at the time, the DLP sets out a general strategy of limited housing development and growth. Policy G2 recognises that Longridge is a principal settlement and one of the most sustainable and suitable towns to accommodate growth.
5.18 More specifically, Policies G2-G4 of the DLP set out the settlement hierarchy for the Borough and outline the general scale of development appropriate within existing settlements.
5.19 Notwithstanding the policy support for development within the settlement boundary of Longridge, the application site is identified as being located ‘Outside the settlement boundary’ of Longridge on proposals maps of the DLP. For Longridge, Policy G2 states that planning permission will be granted for proposals that affect sites that are allocated
17 in the Local Plan, including “development wholly within the built part of the settlement or the rounding-off of the built-up area".
5.20 Policy G5 follows on from Policy G2 and seeks to restrict residential development outside village and settlement boundaries to those that are essential to meet local needs (e.g. agriculture, forestry) or provide 100% affordable housing.
5.21 The application site lies outside but adjacent to the settlement of Longridge, which has expanded since the Local Plan was prepared and adopted. The fact is that although still part of the statutory development plan, the Local Plan has become very outdated and overtaken by more recent planning policy including the Framework. The settlement boundary was based upon historic development needs and was not intended to endure beyond 2006, it is therefore to be treated as out of date irrespective of issues of 5 year housing land supply.
5.22 The relevant housing policies of the Local Plan include: Policy H2, which is similar to Policy G5 (referred to above); Policy H20 relating to the provision of 100% affordable housing outside settlements in accordance with the policy exceptions provided by Policies G5 and H2; and Policy H21 which requires applications for local needs housing to demonstrate what affordable housing needs are being addressed and how they will be retained as such.
5.23 Other policies in the Local Plan set out general development control considerations including requiring proposals to accord with the principles of sustainable development and contribute positively to the character of the area (Policy G1); be accessible (Policy T1); provide access to open space (Policy RT8) and not to have unacceptable impacts in respect of detailed matters such as parking (Policy T7), crime prevention (Policy G11) residential amenity and the environment (Policy ENV3).
5.24 The proposal is, therefore, acknowledged to be in conflict with policies G2, G5 and H2 of the DLP, which remain saved and constitute part of the statutory Development Plan. In engaging Section 38(6) and indeed the Framework, which continues to acknowledge the plan-led system, this is material to the determination of the application.
5.25 However, the policies must be considered against other material considerations, and in doing so it is clear that the weight to be applied to these policies is very limited. This is as a consequence of the policies being out of date, and not up-to-date in the context of the Framework, which is itself as material consideration to be afforded very considerable weight.
Out-of-Date
5.26 The Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan is an old-style development plan document, having been adopted in June 1998 and prepared under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 rather than the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and covering a 15-year period from 1991 to 2006.
5.27 It is consequently now 8 years beyond the intended end-date of the Local Plan and whilst the majority of its policies have been ‘saved’, the Plan is clearly time-expired. It provides no basis for positive planning to meet needs (housing and other) beyond 2006.
18 The ‘saved’ status of the policies does not counter this conclusion; the September 2007 letter from the Government Office for the North West accompanying the Secretary of State Saving Direction, noted that;
“The extended (saved) policies should be read in context. Where policies were adopted some time ago, it is likely that material considerations, in particular the emergence of new national and regional policy and also new evidence, will be afforded considerable weight in decisions.”
5.28 Beyond its time-expired status, the DLP is in important (and relevant) parts not reflective of current circumstances and clearly inconsistent with the Framework; by reference to paragraph 215 of the Framework the weight to be attributed to such policies is lessened.
5.29 The) DLP was prepared to conform to the Lancashire Structure Plan Review 1991-2006 (‘LSPR’). The LSPR was based on evidence of the 1990s national policy context of Planning Policy Guidance 3 (1992). The national policy and evidential foundation for the DLP is therefore very historic and by no means reflects the circumstances that apply today. Indeed, given it aligned with and sought to apply the identified needs within the LSPR, the DLP did not even reflect the policies and (higher housing) requirements set out within the North West Regional Strategy (‘NWRS’) adopted as part of the Development Plan in 2008. That the NWRS has now been revoked for over a year is instructive of the degree to which the DLP is historic legacy and in respect of positive planning to meet needs, provides no relevant basis for the determination of planning applications for housing in the area.
5.30 With specific regard to policies G2, G5 and H2, with which the proposals conflict, these are concerned with the definition of the extents of settlements, and the blanket protection of land outside of those settlements from development (in respect of H2, specifically from housing developments).
5.31 At the point of adoption of the DLP in 1998, the residual housing requirement set out in the Lancashire Structure Plan to 2006 (with which the DLP was required to conform), was 1,070 (net) dwellings for RVBC over the remaining years of the plan period (between 1997 and 2006) or an annual average of 119 dwellings (net). Consequently, the settlement boundaries of the main settlements including Longridge, were predicated on this figure and tightly drawn with little scope to accommodate future growth beyond the plan period. As the open countryside and settlement boundary policies (ENV3 and G2) conveyed a blanket restriction outside of such boundaries, then these too (or at least their extent of coverage) were predicated on the same basis. In addition only two small housing allocations within the whole of the Borough (Castle Castings, Clitheroe and Littlemoor House, Sabden) were made under Policy H1 and both of these have long-since been taken up.
5.32 As referred to, since the DLP was adopted, the NWRS became part of the Development Plan, and set an annual housing target (as an average) for the Ribble Valley of 161 dwellings in the period 2003 – 2021. Hence, even by reference to the NWRS, the DLP policies referred to failed to reflect and provided no basis to plan for the housing requirements within the NWRS.
19 5.33 The NWRS is now revoked, but in any event it does not provide for an objective assessment of needs for housing for the area. It is based on historic evidence and also presented a constrained figure for the area (reflected by the emphasis in the NWRS on focusing development in the principal conurbations and regeneration areas), therefore directly contrary to the policies of the Framework.
5.34 The current needs of the area are most accurately reflected in the evidence supporting the emerging Ribble Valley Borough Core Strategy (Part One Local Plan). As referred to below, this has identified (and the Council has now accepted this as a basis for modifications to the Core Strategy) that the objectively assessed need for the area (and relevant housing requirement) for the period 2008 - 2028 is 5,600 net new dwellings, or an average of 280 net new dwellings per annum.
5.35 The settlement boundaries, and extent of open countryside to be protected, set out in the DLP is therefore not founded on an up-to-date objective assessment of need for housing, and indeed is predicated on an average annual housing requirement that is only 43% of the housing need being identified through the emerging Core Strategy evidence base (and now the Core Strategy itself). Policies G2, G5 and H2 (and indeed H19, H20 and H21) are therefore clearly out of date in their practical application and by no means consistent with policies of the Framework (e.g. Paragraph 14 ‘meeting objectively assessed needs with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change’).
5.36 This is itself recognised by the Council in its formulation of the emerging Core Strategy, both on a borough-wide basis, and with specific regard to Longridge. As referred to further below, the emerging Core Strategy (which is subject to Examination) clearly acknowledges that the delivery of new housing in Ribble Valley to meet needs will necessitate development outside existing settlement boundaries – i.e. that DLP settlement boundaries will need to be redrawn through the Part Two Local Plan process to meet the needs identified in the Core Strategy. For Longridge, recognised as one of the three principal centres to accommodate growth, there are residual needs in excess of 620 net new dwellings which cannot be accommodated within the existing settlement boundary and will need to be accommodated on what is presently designated open countryside.
5.37 That such policies should be deemed out of date in the context of the Framework has been established through recent case law:
• The Hunston Properties High Court Judgement of September 2013 recently upheld in the Court of Appeal found that the Inspector in that case had erred in law to apply the revoked Regional Strategy figure for assessing the 5 year requirement, which departed from the approach in the NPPF (paragraph 47) as it was a constrained figure that failed to reflect “full objectively assessed needs”. In the Court of Appeal Judgement (paragraph 25), it was stated that:
“I am not persuaded that the Inspector was entitled to use a housing figure derived from a revoked plan, even as a proxy for what the local plan may produce eventually”
• The Court of Appeal Judgement (paragraph 26) further states that the inspector was:
20 “…mistaken to use a figure for housing requirements below the full objectively assessed needs figure until such time as the Local Plan process came up with a constrained figure”
• In concluding, the Court of Appeal Judgement (paragraph 32) states:
“Where this inspector went wrong was to use a quantified figure for the five year housing requirement which departed from the approach in the Framework, especially paragraph 47”.
• The Hunston judgements have had direct influence on others, for instance in the recent High Court judgement in respect of South Northamptonshire Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Barwood Land and Estates Ltd1, where Mr Justice Ouseley states:
“In my judgement the crucial point to take from the Hunston case is how to interpret paragraph 47 (i) of the NPPF, relating to the requirement for a full objective assessment of housing needs in the housing market area to the subsequent qualification that that be done so far as is consistent with the policies in the Framework, before the Local Plan is produced, reconciling or balancing the two aims…Before that happens through the Local Plan, the full objectively assessed housing needs of the area are not subject to the constraints of policy” (paragraphs 30 - 31)
“…Until the full objectively assessed needs are qualified by the policies of an up to date Local Plan, they are the needs which go into balance against any NPPF policies. It is at that stage that constraints or otherwise may apply. It may be problematic in its application, but that is how paragraph 47 works” (paragraphs 32)
• Further this case makes it clear that Paragraph 49 of NPPF means that settlement boundaries are deemed to be out of date if there is no 5 year supply:
“In my view however, the effect of paragraph 49 of the Framework is broader than this. Although there must be a direct effect on relevant housing policies, I agree with my colleague that the effect extends to other general development policies which are relevant to the supply of housing. There would thus be some effect on relevant environmental policies, but a greater impact on the restraints included in local plan Policies G2 and G3.”
• Whilst in the High Court judgement in Gallagher Homes Ltd and Lioncourt Homes Ltd v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council2 Mr Justice Hickinbottom stated (at paragraph 88):
‘……a number of points are now, following Hunston, clear. Two relate to development control decision-taking:
1 Citation references EWHC 570 (Admin) and 573 (Admin) 2 Citation [2014] EWHC 1283 (Admin),
21 - Although the first bullet point of paragraph 47 directly concerns plan-making, it is implicit that a local planning authority must ensure that it meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market, as far as consistent with the policies set out in the NPPF, even when considering development control decisions.
- Where there is no Local Plan, then the housing requirement for a local authority for the purposes of paragraph 47 is the full, objectively assessed need.’
5.38 Further, at a specific local level, it has been concluded in appeal (Inspector and Secretary of State decisions) that these very policies are to be deemed out of date (regardless of the 5 year supply position). In the appeal decision3 of 22 April 2014 for the development of up to 190 dwellings on land at Barrow, the Inspector concluded that the “settlement limits in the [Districtwide] Local Plan are significantly out of date”.
5.39 The same approach was also applied in the appeal decision4 of 27th June 2013 for the development of 116 dwellings at Mitton Road, Whalley (paragraph 15) and although it pre-dated the Framework, the decision5 at Henthorn Road, Clitheroe where the Inspector agreed that Policy G2 of the DLP had been overtaken by more recent policy guidance.
5.40 Policies G2, G5 and H2, are therefore clearly out of date, and not consistent with the Framework. The weight to be applied is therefore limited, and on this basis alone, Paragraph 14 of the Framework and the presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged irrespective of the issue of 5 year land supply.
Not Up-to-Date
5.41 Those same policies are also not up-to-date in the context of paragraph 49 of the Framework.
5.42 The most recent information published by the Council in its Housing Land Availability Schedule (HLAS, April 2014) would suggest that, at best, Ribble Valley is only able to demonstrate a deliverable 5.16 year housing land supply, when judged against the relevant housing requirement of 280dpa. This is clearly marginal and is firmly disputed by the applicant. The applicant contests that the Council cannot in fact robustly demonstrate a deliverable 5 year supply of housing in accordance with paragraph 47 of the Framework and is therefore failing in a key component of how the Framework expects LPAs to boost significantly the supply of housing.
5.43 We address this further below when dealing with compliance with the Framework but it follows that in the absence of a robust, deliverable 5 year supply of housing, Policies H2, H19 and H20 are also not up-to-date nor consistent with the Framework. They are therefore also to be afforded limited weight for this reason, and the second limb, second bullet of Paragraph 14 of the Framework is also engaged on this basis.
3 Appeal Ref. APP/T2350/A/13/2197091 4 Appeal Ref. APP/ T2350/A/12/2188887 5 Appeal Ref. APP/T2350/A/11/2161186
22 Conclusions on Weight of Policies
5.44 By any measure, saved Policy G2, G5 and Policy H2 of the DLP are out-of-date and not up-to-date, and hence the weight to be applied to those policies in the determination of the application is limited.
5.45 In the context and the Framework the DLP fundamentally fails to meet the core land-use planning principles set out in the Framework; it:
• Is out-of-date and does not set a positive vision for the future of the area;
• Does not pro-actively drive and support sustainable development to deliver homes and is silent in terms of identifying development opportunities post 2006; neither does it respond positively to wider opportunities for growth;
• Does not make every effort to meet objectively assessed housing needs; and
• Fails to actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling focussing significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.
Other ‘Development Management’ Policies
5.46 Of the saved Local Plan policies to which weight can still be attached, the environmental, design and technical development-management policies of the DLP remain relevant and largely consistent with the Framework.
• Policy G1 sets out the general criteria to be applied to new development; requiring high standards of building design and landscape quality, and supports development that meets these, unless it adversely affects amenity. Policy G11 requires that development should also be designed to decrease crime and increase the risk of detection;
• Policy ENV3 requires development to be in-keeping with the character of landscape areas and reflect local vernacular scale, styles and materials;
• Policies ENV7 and 9 require developers to demonstrate that proposals will not have an adverse impact on protected wildlife species, and Policy ENV10 requires adequate mitigation where impacts are identified;
• Policy ENV13 seeks to protect important landscape features, trees and hedgerows.
• The preservation of ancient monuments or other nationally important archaeological remains will be sought under Policy ENV14, along with the protection of their settings. The case for preservation will be assessed having regard to the intrinsic importance of the remains which will be weighed against the need for a proposed development;
23 • Policies ENV16 and 17 require development affecting a conservation area to assess its impact on the heritage asset, and the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area will also be a material consideration in respect of development proposals outside a designated area which would affect its setting or views;
• Policy ENV20 considers the effect of development proposals within the setting of listed buildings. Considerations will include the desirability of preserving the setting of the building, the effect on the building’s character, the contribution of the listed building to the townscape or countryside and the extent to which the proposed works would bring substantial benefits to the community including economic benefits;
• All residential development over 1ha should provide adequate and useable open space under Policy RT8; and,
• Policy T1 considers the availability of public transport and the provisions made for pedestrians, cyclists and those with reduced mobility to be taken into account in planning decisions.
5.47 In summary, the DLP was prepared in the early 1990’s, was the subject of a Local Plan Inquiry in 1996 and was intended to provide the strategic and detailed policy framework in the Borough for a fifteen year period to 2006. This is a significantly different planning, housing and economic context to the one currently prevailing in the Ribble Valley in particular and England, in general. As a result the Policies G2 and G5 are out of date and can be afforded little weight in decision making on this application.
5.48 Furthermore, Policies H2, H19 and H20 were based upon the housing requirement that sought to protect the countryside for its own sake. In view of this and the clear identification of need for housing in Longridge within the Core Strategy mean that the application site of Policies G2, G5 and H2 can be afforded no weight.
Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan
5.49 The Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (LMWLP), comprising the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2009) along with the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2013) represents the development plan in respect of minerals relating to the application proposals.
5.50 Policy CS1 of the LMWLP requires minerals that have economic, environmental or heritage value and potential for extraction now or in the future to be identified and shown as mineral safeguarding areas on the Policies Map. In this regard, Policy M2 (Safeguarding Minerals) identifies that the application site forms part of a much broader Mineral Safeguarding Area (MSA) that extends to the north and east of Longridge.
5.51 In summary, the application sites lies within a Minerals Safeguarding Area for sand and gravel (Policy M2 of the LMWLP). This policy requires proposals for development other than non-mineral extraction, to demonstrate that they will not sterilise the resource or that consideration has been given to prior extraction in consultation with the Minerals
24 Planning Authority and that the need for the proposed development outweighs the economic value of the resource.
Emerging Core Strategy and Evidence Base
Ribble Valley Core Strategy: A Local Plan for Ribble Valley 5.52 The Ribble Valley Core Strategy (RVCS) was submitted to the Secretary of State in September 2012. The Submission draft presents the spatial strategy for the Borough for the period to 2028. The following vision for the Ribble Valley is outlined:
The Ribble Valley will be an area with an exceptional environment and quality of life for all, sustained by vital and vibrant market towns and villages acting as thriving service centres, meeting the needs of residents, businesses and visitors. We will seek to create an area with unrivalled quality of place, respecting the unique natural, social and built heritage of the area. New development to meet the needs of the area for growth, services and quality of life will be managed to ensure the special characteristics of the area are preserved for future generations.
5.53 Paragraph 3.7 of the draft Core Strategy confirms that growth will be required in a way that balances the need for development with the need to conserve the quality of the environment. Of further note, the strategic objectives of the Core Strategy seek to ensure that the supply of affordable homes and decent homes will be matched with identified need.
5.54 Longridge is recognised as one of the larger and more accessible settlements in the Borough. The town has an extensive range of services and facilities which will enable people who will reside at the proposal site to meet their daily needs without the need for travel by private car. The town is served by a number of local services such as a primary schools, high school, comparison and convenience shopping, health centre, post office, and pubs and employment areas.
5.55 Spatially, Longridge is a highly suitable and sustainable location for development and is able to accommodate and deliver a notable appropriate proportion of the Borough’s housing needs. This position is reflected in the emerging Core Strategy, where Longridge is recognised alongside Clitheroe and Whalley as a principal town to accommodate growth. Notwithstanding this, the Council acknowledge that the existing settlement boundary cannot accommodate Longridge’s growth over the plan period (2008-2028). As a result, there is a clear need to accommodate additional housing development beyond the existing DLP settlement boundary.
5.56 In considering potential areas for growth around the town, it is important to note that administrative boundary of Preston City Council (PCC) runs along the western edge of Longridge. As a consequence, new development in Longridge is, therefore, a cross boundary issue between RVBC and PCC.
5.57 The ‘Longridge adjustment’ is the outcome of this cross boundary issue. This work reflects the potential of land to the west of Longridge in Preston, to provide an allocation for 200 dwellings. Whilst the Longridge adjustment understates the role of settlement (which elsewhere is recognised as a principal settlement to be a focus for growth) and implies that it is founded on a cross-boundary rationale which is borne out by evidence
25 planning permission has recently been granted (at appeal) for development on land to the north and south of Whittingham Road, Longridge6 .
5.58 Until its revocation, the NWRS set an annual housing target of 161 dwellings for Ribble Valley. However, in response to the Government’s decision to revoke the regional tier of planning and the enshrined housing targets, RVBC commenced the process of determining a locally driving housing requirement.
5.59 A housing requirement report testing a range of scenarios was commissioned by the Council and carried out by Nathaniel Litchfield and Partners (NLP), the recommendations were the subject of a public consultation in December 2011. A housing target of between 190-220 dwellings per annum (or a requirement over the plan period of between 3,800-4,400 dwellings) was proposed, with a recommendation from officers that the Council should adopt a figure of 220 dpa.
5.60 Notwithstanding this recommendation, RVBC resolved that the housing requirement to be taken forward in the submitted Core Strategy was a level of 200 dwellings per annum as a minimum, or 4,000 dwellings over the plan period (Key Statement H1: Housing Provision).
5.61 It is important to note that the applicant made objections to the Draft (Regulation 22) Submission Version of the Core Strategy on the basis that the housing requirement and development strategy were all ‘unsound’. Flaws in the Council’s approach to the Core Strategy and the supporting evidence base were subsequently confirmed by the Inspector appointed to examine the Plan during 2013. The Inspector advised that he regarded the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (2008), Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and Employment Land and Retail Study to be ‘out of date’ and recommended that the examination be suspended until the evidence had been refreshed by the Council. The Inspector’s letter to the Council on 23 November 2012 can be accessed at Appendix 7.
5.62 The ‘hold’ period was utilised by the Council to review and prepare an updated evidence base, including an update of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The Council also commissioned Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP) to complete the ‘Ribble Valley Housing Requirement Update’, and this work was published in May 2013.
5.63 The 2013 housing requirement study undertaken by NLP on behalf of the Council appraises various scenarios and the effect they may have upon the housing requirement for RVBC. The study identifies that the economic scenarios indicate a housing requirement in the range 280 net dwellings per annum to 559 net dwellings per annum.
5.64 The evidential basis for the revised housing requirement (the NLP report) made clear that a figure of 250dpa would not meet the full requirements of the Framework nor the full objectively assessed needs of the area taking in to account economic needs and identified a series of evidential / policy requirements if this figure was to be pursued. Notwithstanding this, the Council elected to increase the housing requirement from 4,000 to 5,000 over the plan period (i.e. a minimum of 250 units per year from 2008-
6 Appeal reference: APP/N2395/A/13/2200445
26 2028). Again, the applicant, and a number of other parties within the development industry, raised objection to this figure on the basis it was insufficient, did not represent the objective assessed need and patently failed to align with the Plan’s economic policies
5.65 In November 2013, the Inspector published his list of matters and confirmed the dates for the hearings in January 2014. The hearings closed formally on 22 January 2014. On 31 January, the Inspector issued an interim letter (refer to Appendix 8) to provide clear direction regarding the soundness of the plan and the need to increase the housing requirement, refine the settlement hierarchy and address the method of treating the Longridge adjustment.
5.66 In summary, the Inspector concluded that housing and economic growth should “dovetail” and for this to genuinely occur an annual average of at least 280 dwellings per annum is necessary. In light of this interim letter, the Council has undertaken further work and is proposing to further modify the Core Strategy to take account of the Inspector’s comments, and to more directly reflect the NLP report, which in itself was intended to identify the objectively assessed needs for the area. The Council intends to increase the overall housing requirement to 5,600 units over the plan period (i.e. a minimum of 280 units per year from 2008-2028) which increases the residual requirement for Longridge to 629 dwellings. This position is confirmed in the recent Planning and Development Committee Report, endorsed as per officer recommendation, enclosed at Appendix 9.
Ribble Valley Settlement Hierarchy (2008)
5.67 The settlement hierarchy was produced to help inform the Core Strategy to determine the most appropriate and sustainable locations for accommodating future development within Ribble Valley.
5.68 It assesses the function of all of the settlements within the Borough in terms of their provision of transport services, convenience shopping, community facilities, medical facilities, education and employment.
5.69 Scored out of a possible 37 points (100%) provision, Clitheroe is the highest order settlement with Longridge and Whalley ranking equally as second and third and scoring 33 points (89%), and; “standing out from all other settlements in terms of its provision across all the various service and facilities categories”.
5.70 The report concludes that; “the position of the three key centres of Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley is clear.”
Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2013)
5.71 The SHMA provides an assessment of the structure and characteristics of the housing market in Ribble Valley. It identifies that there is a growing requirement to meet the housing needs of existing residents by encouraging the provision of affordable housing, as well as increasing the supply of market housing to meet the demand from a growing population and understanding the implications of a growing elderly population and meeting their needs and aspirations.
27 5.72 The SHMA identifies a net need for 404 affordable properties per annum. Section 5 of the document considers other sources of supply, including subsidised private rent, and indicates a revised net need figure of 114dpa. It then goes on to identify in Section 6 that a split of 70% market and 30% affordable (comprising 6% shared ownership, 19% Affordable Rent and 5% new social rented dwellings) should be adopted. On this basis, the requirement for 114 affordable dwellings (as 30% of an overall requirement) would equate to an overall requirement of 380dpa.
5.73 As set out at Paragraph 5.64 above, there is a need to deliver the homes, jobs and services required to meet the needs of the whole borough. Moreover, the Inspector presiding over the Ribble Valley Core Strategy has confirmed that there is a symbolic relationship between homes and jobs by confirming that an annual average of 280 dwellings per annum is necessary moving forward.
Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (2013)
5.74 The SHLAA update was undertaken during the Core Strategy Examination suspension period and includes the findings of the ‘call for sites’ exercise which was carried out in February and March 2013.
5.75 As part of the ‘Call for Sites’ exercise, 110 new sites were put through an initial filtering process. This resulted in 60 sites being excluded. The remaining 50 sites which met the SHLAA initial methodology criteria were then assessed further in terms of suitability, availability and achievability.
5.76 The 2013 SHLAA identifies 160ha of land in the 5-year supply category. This equates to 6,294 dwellings, which is significantly above the 5 year supply figure. However, the applicant does not consider that the 2013 SHLAA represents a realistic assessment of supply because it is based upon identified land that could come forward, rather than allocations or permissions. This has also been confirmed by the Council’s reliance upon the Housing Land Availability Schedule (HLAS) to interpret and calculate RVBC’s 5 year housing land supply position.
5.77 With specific regard to Longridge, the 2013 SHLAA indicates that there is capacity to support the delivery of 27 dwellings on brownfield infill sites and a further 11 units through provision on greenfield infill sites within the settlement boundary. This further demonstrates that there is very little capacity to accommodate development within the existing limits of Longridge.
5.78 The application site and adjoining land to the north of Dilworth Lane has been promoted through the SHLAA and its suitability for housing has been assessed by the Council. The site and adjoining land to the north, referred to as ‘Site 382 - Land between Dilworth Lane and Higher Road’ (refer to Appendix 10) is considered available, achievable and deliverable for housing with a potential capacity of 660 dwellings. Due to interest from more than one landowner, the SHLAA considered the site (SHLAA Ref. 382) to be deliverable within the 11-15 year period. However, the application site is under the control of Taylor Wimpey and land ownership issues would not preclude the site from coming forward for development in the immediate term.
28 5.79 Overall the application site (and adjoining land) achieves a score of 90 out of 115, after being assessed against the SHLAA sustainability criteria. It is, therefore, deemed suitable for new housing development in principle and offering a realistic prospect of delivery.
Defining a Local Housing Requirement (2013)
5.80 As referred to above, to determine a local housing requirement for the Core Strategy plan period in light of the revocation of RSS, the Council commissioned by NLP in 2013 to assess potential future scenarios based on a range of housing, economic and demographic factors, trends and forecasts.
5.81 The 2013 housing requirement study appraises various scenarios and the effect they may have upon the housing requirement for RVBC. The study identifies that the economic scenarios indicate a housing requirement in the range 280 net dwellings per annum to 559 net dwellings per annum. The 280 figure is based upon the most recent (2013) Employment Land Review (ELR), whilst the other economic scenarios propose in excess of 300 dwellings per annum.
5.82 As set out at paragraph 5.66 above, the Inspector presiding over the Core Strategy examination has recommended that the minimum annual requirement for housing development in the borough should equate to 280 homes per annum and the Council is now proposed to modify the Plan to this effect.
Other Policy Documents
Addressing Housing Need in Ribble Valley (2012) 5.83 Adopted in January 2012, this non-statutory policy updates the 2009 Affordable Housing: Memorandum of Understanding, and seeks to address the affordability of housing in the Borough and meeting the housing needs of older people.
5.84 It intends that everyone in Ribble Valley should have the opportunity of a decent and affordable home. The Council is committed to helping local people who cannot afford to buy or rent homes on the open market, and a key corporate ambition is to match the supply of homes in an area with its identified housing needs. A key priority of the Sustainable Community Strategy to 2013, Corporate Plan and Housing Strategy is therefore to maximise the supply of affordable housing.
5.85 The document sets out the Council’s policy and threshold for providing affordable housing in new developments. In locations other than Clitheroe and Longridge, developments of 5 or more dwellings are required to provide 30% affordable housing on site.
5.86 The document goes onto cite that reduced provision (to a minimum of 20%) will only be considered where this is clearly supported by viability evidence. Whilst the guidance relating to viability evidence is contrary to guidance set out at Paragraph 50 of the Framework, the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA, 2013) has confirmed that the current affordable housing target of 30% remains appropriate.
29 5.87 The document also sets out the requirements for meeting the needs of older people in the Ribble Valley, given the ageing population which is projected to increase by 49% in the next 15 years. This means that for developments of 30 or more units, 15% of the units must be provided for the elderly and of that 15%, a minimum of half of the units (7.5% of a total scheme) must be made affordable and included within the affordable offer of 30%. The remaining elderly accommodation can be sold at market value.
Longridge Neighbourhood Plan (2014)
5.88 Longridge Town Council is progressing a Neighbourhood Plan under the Localism Act 2011. A steering group has been set up to progress the neighbourhood plan which includes representatives from the community along with officers from the Council...
5.89 The Longridge Neighbourhood Plan boundary was published in for consultation in June 2013 and the consultation period closed at the end of July 2013. The Neighbourhood Plan boundary area was agreed by RVBC at the Planning and Development Committee meeting in September 2013. In the intervening period, a Key Issues Matrix has been prepared by the Town Council but a draft plan has yet to be published. It is, therefore, likely that it will take approximately two years to progress the Neighbourhood Plan through the referendum process. Regardless of the timeframe, it is important to note that it cannot override strategic decisions and policies contained within the Local Plan.
5.90 The Neighbourhood Plan for Longridge will need to be consistent with the Framework but also the emerging Core Strategy. The emerging Core Strategy identifies Longridge as one of the key settlements that can and will need to accommodate new development. This positive, pro-growth agenda will need to be embraced in the Neighbourhood Plan. In this context, the application proposals would only support such a Neighbourhood Plan and would not be in conflict.
5.91 However, no weight can be afforded to the neighbourhood plan at this early stage of the process.
30 6. Planning Appraisal
The Statutory Basis for Determining the Planning Application
6.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 refers to the Development Plan as a whole and requires that:
“If regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”
6.2 This is a reiteration of the presumption in favour of development that accords with an adopted and up to date Development Plan, as qualified by Paragraph 12 of the Framework.
6.3 The Framework also makes it clear that development plans should be kept up-to-date and in accordance with its policies at all times, following the approach of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. For that reason, wherever an adopted Development Plan is absent, silent or not up to date, or where there is more than limited conflict with its policies, the Framework will carry greater weight as a material consideration in the decision-making process
6.4 On this basis, the key issues to determine in the consideration of this planning application are whether;
• the development proposals are in accordance with the relevant policies of the adopted Development Plan, insofar as they apply and the degree of weight that can be reasonably attributed to them, and whether;
• the assessment of all other material considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework and the application of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, point towards the appropriateness of a grant of planning permission in the planning balance.
Issue 1: Compliance with the Development Plan
6.5 The second part of Paragraph 14 of the Framework sets out clear guidance for decision makers, stating that unless material considerations indicate otherwise, the presumption in favour of sustainable development means;
“Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay”
6.6 Having identified those parts of the development plan that are relevant and up-to-date in the previous chapter, the following paragraphs assess whether the development proposals are in accordance with the Development Plan.
31 Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan
6.7 The technical information and reports submitted in support of the application demonstrates that the development proposals are capable of meeting all of the requirements of the relevant ‘development management’ saved Local Plan policies.
6.8 Policy G1 sets out the general criteria to be applied to new development; requiring high standards of building design and landscape quality, and supports development that meets these, unless it adversely affects amenity. Meanwhile, Policy G11 requires that development should also be designed to decrease crime and increase the risk of detection. In this regard, the proposals will help to promote the social, economic and physical well-being of the community in Longridge in an efficient and effective manner consistent with its character.
6.9 The Design and Access Statement (DAS) prepared by Randall Thorp and submitted with the application demonstrates that the proposal will be a high quality residential development with substantial landscaping and open space. By retaining the existing trees and hedgerows the proposal will have significant landscape attributes and these features will help to protect and enhance local biodiversity. The development is to be carefully laid out so that it will be satisfactorily assimilated into its surroundings to avoid any impact on the adjacent dwellings on the edge of Longridge, respects the amenities of the neighbouring residents and minimise the potential for crime.
6.10 There are a number of saved environmental policies, including Policy ENV3 which requires development to be in-keeping with the character of landscape areas and reflect local vernacular scale, styles and materials. These details are addressed in more detail in the DAS and Landscape Assessment which are submitted as part of the application.
6.11 Policies ENV7 and ENV9 require developers to demonstrate that proposals will not have an adverse impact on protected wildlife species, and Policy ENV10 requires adequate mitigation where impacts are identified. Policy ENV13 seeks to protect important landscape features, trees and hedgerows. The requirements of this policy are satisfied by the measures set out in the Arboricultural Survey and Ecology Report which support the application. In addition, the retained landscape features are shown on the supporting Parameters Plan.
6.12 The preservation of ancient monuments or other nationally important archaeological remains is sought by the Council under Policy ENV14, along with the protection of their settings. The case for preservation will be assessed having regard to the intrinsic importance of the remains which will be weighed against the need for a proposed development. The requirements of this policy are addressed in the submitted Archaeological Assessment (prepared by CgMS) which confirms that the site does not include any ancient monuments or other nationally important archaeological remains.
6.13 Policies ENV16, 17 and 20 of the DLP require development affecting a conservation area and listed buildings to assess its impact on the heritage asset, and the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area will also be a material consideration in respect of development proposals outside a designated area which would affect its setting or views. The application site is situated 100m to the west of a Conservation Area, and seven Grade II Listed Buildings are located to the
32 north and west. The closest of these buildings comprise a row of terraced houses at 6- 44 Higher Road, Sharley Fold and the Church of St Paul. Views between the Conservation Area and all seven Grade II Listed Buildings and the application site are blocked by existing development and mature woodland. The development of the application site in the manner proposed will have no impact upon their settings or significance.
6.14 In accordance with Policy RT8 of the DLP, all residential development over 1ha should provide adequate and useable open space. To address this requirement, the Illustrative Masterplan makes adequate provision for formal and informal public open space within the proposed development along with areas for play (totalling c. 3.1ha). The Parameters Plan sets the framework for this provision and a Section 106 Agreement / planning conditions can secure the provision.
6.15 Policy T1 considers the availability of public transport and the provisions made for pedestrians, cyclists and those with reduced mobility to be taken into account in planning decisions. Information and analysis of the proposed development against the local and national policies is contained within the Transport Assessment and supporting Travel Plan prepared by Curtins and submitted with this application. It demonstrates the accessibility of the site, and the measures to be undertaken to further enhance this.
6.16 The development proposals are therefore fully compliant with the overall strategy and those relevant spatial, technical and design policies of the adopted Development Plan to which weight can be applied in the decision-making process.
6.17 As dealt with in the previous section, it is recognised that the proposals do conflict with DLP policies G2, G5 and H2. However, for the reasons given above, these policies are out-dated in a time-expired plan, and are also not up-to-date given the absence of a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites. Such conflict should therefore carry limited weight in the determination of the application. This limited weight to be applied to the conflict that arises, and the considerable compliance with policies that remain relevant and generally consistent with national policy, needs to be balanced against other material considerations. Amongst those, and to be afforded considerable weight is the presumption in favour of sustainable development set by the Framework, which is addressed further below.
Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2009 & 2013)
6.18 As set out at Section 5 of this statement, the application site lies within the boundary of a MSA as defined in the LMWLP. It should be emphasised that the purpose of designating Mineral Safeguard Area (MSA) is not to restrict development per se, but ensure that due consideration is given to the potential sterilisation of the mineral resource. Furthermore, a safeguard area does not imply any presumption that mineral working will be permitted.
6.19 The application site adjoins the eastern edge of urban Longridge and the Minerals Assessment (prepared by Betts Associates) which supports the application confirms that quarrying within 100 meters of existing housing on Higher Road and Dilworth Lane would not be feasible or practical because of a range of impacts, such as noise, dust and vibration. It is also acknowledged that the nature of the geology at the site would
33 affect the viability of developing a high quality quarry at the application site. Even if the deposit was suitable, the constraints outlined in this report demonstrate that only a limited area for working, which, even if mineral deposits occurred at reasonable depth, could not be undertaken in an environmentally acceptable manner.
6.20 It is clear therefore that the proposal does not conflict with the objectives of the LMWLP Policy CS1 and M2, as although available mineral deposits may exist they would not be economically or environmentally viable to recover. In any event, there is a pressing need for housing, which the proposals respond to, and this need is considered to outweigh the impacts caused to the potential (considered very limited) for extraction of mineral resource.
Issue 2: Assessment of Other Material Considerations
6.21 Both the Act and the Framework refer to other material considerations that may be taken into account in the decision-making process. In this case, the principal material consideration is the Framework, together with other relevant documents including the emerging development plan and relevant Ministerial Statements.
Compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework
6.22 In the first instance, the proposed development accords with the following relevant Core Planning Principles set out at Paragraph 17 of the Framework. As set out at Paragraph 6.7-6.17 above, the development;
• No.3 will help to pro-actively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes and thriving local places that the country needs; every effort should be made to objectively identify and then meet the housing, business, and other development needs of an area and respond positively to wider opportunities of growth;
• No.4 seeks to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants;
• No.5 takes account of the different roles and character of different areas and will support the thriving community in Longridge;
• No.6 supports the transition to a low carbon future (see Design and Access Statement and the Energy Report accompanying the application);
• No.7 contributes to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and creating new habitat;
• No.10 conserves heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance;
• No.11 promotes growth in a sustainable location where the fullest use of public transport, walking and cycling can be made, and;
• No.12 takes account of and supports local strategies to improve health, social, cultural wellbeing for all and delivers community facilities to meet local needs.
34 The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development
6.23 Paragraph 6 of the Framework makes it clear that Sustainable Development means that development proposals must be assessed against Policies 18 to 219 of the document as a whole. Such an assessment should be read in the context of the three social, economic and environmental dimensions set out in Paragraph 7 and the guidance at Paragraphs 8 to 17 of the Framework, and all elements of a scheme should be balanced such that even if there is a conflict with one aspect of policy, an overall development may still be sustainable.
6.24 Not all of the policies in the Framework will be relevant to a particular development. Those elements that are identified as being relevant to the proposed development at Dilworth Lane are considered in more detail below:
Building a Strong and Competitive Economy
6.25 Housing development is a key component of economic growth and this is fully recognised in Government policy and Ministerial guidance. The delivery of a sufficient quantum of housing of the right type, at the right time and in the right location, is fundamental and as much a part of the growth agenda as direct economic development.
6.26 In specific relation to the proposals at Dilworth Lane, it is calculated that the proposed development will deliver a number of tangible benefits to Longridge. These are summarised below:
• Construction-Related Employment – the proposed development has the capacity to support approximately 302 person-years of direct employment with the construction sector. This equates to an average of 55 full-time equivalent (FTE) temporary construction jobs on-site annually7.
• Construction-Related Indirect and Induced Economic Benefits – a further annual average of 19 FTE jobs would be supported within the supply chain, related businesses, and onward expenditure across Ribble Valley and the wider North West regional economy due to the construction of the proposed development throughout the construction period8.
• Construction-Related Productivity - The construction phase of the proposed development will generate a significant increase in Gross Value Added (GVA), which provides a measure of economic productivity. The construction capital expenditure associated with the proposed development could deliver an annual net additional £3.9 million contribution to the Ribble Valley, and wider regional economy9, during the construction period10.
7 HM Treasury considers that 1 permanent FTE construction job is equivalent to 10 person-years of employment. This therefore assumes a 10 year construction period as standard. In reality the volume of construction employees on site will fluctuate and will be higher if the construction period is reduced. It is assumed that the proposed development will have a 6 year construction period. 8 Direct, indirect and induced impacts applied in line with HCA (2014) Additionality Guide Fourth Edition. 9 Average GVA per employee estimates within Ribble Valley and North West region construction sector sourced from Experian for 2015-2020 period (as projected at Q1 2014). 10 Note: This assumes a 10 year construction period.
35 • Enhanced Local Spending Power – there is potential to increase the population by circa 506 people residing within up to 220 new homes11. Based on this total population growth, there will be circa 270 economically active and employed residents residing on the completed scheme12, who will generate household income of approximately £7.8 million annually. These residents will bolster local labour supply. There is the potential to capture up to circa £2 million of household retail (convenience and comparison) expenditure, and £1.3 million of leisure (goods and services) expenditure, every year within the Ribble Valley economy, from households living on the completed scheme13. This will help to boost the vitality and viability of local shops, businesses and sustain essential local services.
• Public Revenue for Investment in Community Services – the construction of the new homes has the potential to generate circa £1.5 million New Homes Bonus revenue for Ribble Valley Borough Council and circa £370,000 for Lancashire County Council. This would provide an important source of revenue funding for the Council in delivering public services as well as investing in maintaining and enhancing infrastructure within the locality.
6.27 On this basis, the provision of quality family housing at Longridge as a Key Service Centre, in the manner proposed, is central to the achievement of sustainable economic growth in Ribble Valley and is fully supported by the requirements and advice of the Framework.
Promoting Sustainable Transport
6.28 The application is supported by a Transport Assessment; the scope and methodology of which has been agreed with Lancashire County Council and includes a cumulative assessment of committed development within Longridge and growth factors for the proposed assessment year of 2014 and a future assessment year of 2024. Development flows have been assigned to the network and the operation of the proposed site access junction with Blackburn Road has been modelled using PICADY.
6.29 The assessment shows that the transport impacts of the proposed development has an immaterial impact on the operation of the junctions in future years, with a total development impact of less than 1%. In addition, it confirms that the proposed accesses would be able to accommodate the numbers and types of vehicles expected to travel to and from the site and that the site is accessible by a range of travel modes, including public transport.
6.30 The impact is certainly not ‘severe’ and therefore meets the test set out at paragraph 33 of the Framework. The site is also capable of offering a range of opportunities to encourage sustainable transport modes to be taken up by future residents in preference to the use of private car; this is consistent with paragraph 37 of the Framework.
6.31 The proposals therefore accord with the Framework in terms of promoting sustainable transport.
11 Assuming 2.3 persons per household in line with average household size in Ribble Valley (Census 2011) 12 NOMIS (2014) ONS APS (Oct 2012 - Sep 2013) 13 Expenditure data drawn from Turley draft Retail Study (2013) – Projected to 2018 – estimates in 2011 prices
36 Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes
6.32 Paragraph 47 of the Framework requires local planning authorities to significantly boost the supply of housing by (inter-alia) identifying and annually updating, a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements.
6.33 In its most up to date monitoring report ‘Housing Land Availability Schedule’ (HLAS) of April 2014, Ribble Valley has a committed housing supply of 2711 dwellings (net) comprising extant planning consents in the three Key Service Centre settlements and the rural parishes.
6.34 Set against what is considered to be the relevant requirement of 280 dwellings per annum, this equates to a numerical supply of just over 5 years, allowing for 10% slippage.
6.35 The application has reviewed the supply and considers that the position is not as clear- cut nor favourable as the planning authority indicates for the following reasons;
• the housing land supply calculation does not identify assumed build rates nor provide justification for such rates or clarify if an allowance has been made to accommodate a lead in time, and what that may be.
• the Council has applied an identified a 5 year delivery figure for the two large sites, and indeed all sites within planning permission, without any transparent explanation, clear foundation or justification. This is contrary to best practice guidance contained in the PPG14.
• it is not transparent as to whether the housing land supply calculation takes in to account lead in times and likely delays in the planning process and/or the time taken to implement development
6.36 In light of these findings, the applicant has reviewed the HLAS to establish whether the permitted development can appropriately contribute to the housing land supply position and to ensure that the qualifying permissions remain extant. The applicant’s housing analysis and associated calculations are provided at Appendix 11.
6.37 In summary, the Council at best has a supply of 4.00 years measured against the emerging Core Strategy requirement, when a 20% buffer is used, which it must be in this case.
6.38 The analysis clearly demonstrates that the Council is therefore unable to satisfy the 5 year housing requirement with buffer set out in Paragraph 47 of the Framework and there is consequently a compelling and pressing need for additional housing to be delivered in the Borough. This alone engages an in-principle policy imperative to release additional land for sustainable housing development to redress the need.
6.39 As to longer terms needs, as set out at Paragraph 5.66 above, the Council’s draft Core Strategy recognises the need for 629 dwellings in Longridge, over and above what has
14 Planning Practice Guidance: Paragraph: 028; Reference ID: 3-028-20140306
37 already been built or granted planning approval. This reflects identified need which has to be met in the Plan period.
6.40 The 629 residual figure takes in to account ‘the Longridge adjustment’, which reduces the remaining requirement for Longridge to reflect committed development on the western edge of the town in the Preston administrative area.
6.41 The application site has been included within the SHLAA and is considered to be suitable and available for viable housing delivery.
6.42 The site is ready for development and controlled by the applicant who has expressed a clear commitment to early delivery of the scheme if consented. This would be in accordance with the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (2013) and following the grant of Reserved Matters approval the proposal would make an immediate contribution to the supply of affordable housing and housing in general in an area of evident housing need and demand (in accordance with the 2013 SHMA). It would be an immediately positive action to provide for the requirement for housing in the area and to help redress the shortfall in the recent provision of housing.
6.43 The application site would go a considerable way to meeting the identified need for an additional 629 homes on the edge of Longridge. The proposed development for 220 dwellings has been brought forward and designed to respond directly to this identified need to provide additional housing and much-needed affordable housing in Ribble Valley, and does so in accordance with the spatial policies of the adopted development plan by developing a sustainable site in a sustainable location at one of the Borough’s three Key Service Centres and to a scale appropriate to the size and function of Longridge.
6.44 In this situation, the application proposals must be assessed on its own merits and in light of the policies and criteria set out in the Framework, not the adopted Local Plan. The clear alignment of the proposals with the policies within the Framework and their ability to deliver genuinely sustainable development indicate that the application should be considered favourably.
Housing Mix and Choice
6.45 Paragraph 50 of the Framework states that local authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community.
6.46 The proposed development of 220 dwellings will provide a balanced mix of dwellings providing a choice of type and size in response to the identified housing demand and market assessment for Longridge, with an emphasis on housing for the elderly, a number of smaller homes for younger people and a primary range of family housing offering a choice of accommodation.
6.47 Moreover, the development will also provide the full obligation of 30% affordable housing and similarly offers a suitable mix tailored to identified local housing needs in Longridge and providing a percentage of the affordable provision as purpose-built
38 bungalows for older people and the balance as a choice of 2 and 3 bedroom properties for single, two person households and family occupation.
6.48 The proposal will deliver affordable housing within an attractive and sustainable development in the community where it is needed. This provision is a significant material consideration and positive benefit of favour of the proposal and.
6.49 An Affordable Housing Statement is provided at Appendix 12 of this Statement.
Requiring Good Design
6.50 The scheme is in outline with all matters reserved except for access. The proposals are supported by a detailed Design and Access statement which provides an illustrative masterplan which shows how the site could be built out as guided by the Development Framework.
6.51 This shows that a mix of dwellings could be provided in order to provide a choice of house types and size on the site within a number of development parcels. Alongside the illustrative masterplan, the Design and Access Statement which accompanies the planning application sets out a range of design and layout principles which the residential scheme should adhere to at the detailed design stage; these have also been spatially expressed through the Development Framework and informed by a detailed consideration of the site and its surroundings. Development in accordance with these principles will create a high quality sustainable residential scheme set within a strong landscape setting. It would ensure that the proposed development complements and integrates with surrounding residential development, responds positively to the character of Longridge and its surroundings, improves permeability and is fully accessible on foot, by cycle and by public transport. It would also ensure that new buildings relate well to adjacent housing and protect the amenities of neighbouring residents.
6.52 Given the foregoing, it is considered that the proposals are consistent to paragraphs 56- 68 of the Framework as well as Policy G1 of the DLP.
Promoting Healthy Communities
6.53 Healthy communities are those that interact and are cohesive, the location of the application site forms a natural and not-incongruous extension to the settlement of Longridge.
6.54 The site is not designated as Essential Open Space as defined by the DLP. It therefore does not serve a recreational purpose that would be lost as a result of the development but will instead deliver formal and informal public spaces for the new community.
6.55 It is an ideal location for residential development, located on the edge of a vibrant, popular and sustainable Key Service Centre, given the close proximity to existing community facilities and services which are easily accessible by foot. The proposed development will provide a boost to the local economy, ensuring that the long-term vitality of the town centre and community is sustained and enhanced.
39 6.56 The indicative design of the scheme has been carefully developed to encourage social interaction and promote community safety, including through layout, the treatment of streets and public open space at the heart of the development, thus contributing towards the creation of a socially cohesive community.
6.57 The proposals would therefore promote the principles of a healthy community and deliver sustainable development in this respect.
Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change and Flooding
6.58 The application is accompanied by foul and surface water drainage strategies and a detailed Flood Risk Assessment which confirms that the site lies within the lowest risk area (Zone 1) with regards to flooding and as such, can be considered to be in a sequentially preferable location for residential development.
6.59 A foul drainage connection is available to the adopted public sewer at Lower Lane (or at the junction of Dilworth Lane and Calfcote Lane) and there is available capacity to serve the development.
6.60 Surface water will be drained via a sustainable urban drainage system. The development will therefore be appropriately drained and will not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere and will also include provision for any future increases in rain-fall due to climate change.
6.61 The proposed development has been developed to high standards of environmental design. The applicant appreciates the urgent need to tackle climate change and deliver low carbon developments. As such they are committed to delivering a development at Dilworth Lane that will deliver high standards of sustainability. More specifically, the design of the residential development will incorporate measures to reduce carbon emissions
6.62 The application is also accompanied by an Energy Statement which confirms that dwellings will include measures that would support a ‘low carbon future’, as directed by Paragraph 95 of the Framework.
6.63 Overall, the proposals accord with the Framework in terms of meeting the challenge of climate change and delivering a development to high standards of sustainable design.
Conserving the Natural Environment
6.64 The site is free of any statutory designations or environmental constraint. This is remarkable in the Ribble Valley. The site is situated away from the Forest of Bowland Agricultural Land Classification
6.65 The application is accompanied by a survey that demonstrates that the entire site is poor quality Grade 3b land. The proposed development will not therefore result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land and therefore complies with Paragraph 112 of the Framework and Policy ENV6 of the DLP.
40 Landscape and Visual Amenity 6.66 The landscape context and character of the application site has fully informed and shaped the form and extent of the proposed development as demonstrated in the Landscape Impact Assessment and Design and Access Statement accompanying the planning application.
6.67 Development of the land at Dilworth Lane will have little impact on the wider landscape of the character areas surrounding Longridge, but will replace an area of mainly agricultural land with housing development. However, the scheme will be designed in such a way to integrate positively with the rest of the settlement with appropriate landscaping, ecological buffers and high quality design. The development would carefully respect its impact on existing areas using natural and physical features along with landscaping to separate it from other homes, reservoirs and wider countryside. It would therefore have a neutral or positive impact on landscape and amenity overall.
6.68 The development will not affect the landscape quality and scenic beauty of any designated areas and will preserve the non-designated landscape setting and visual amenities of the site and setting of Longridge. The development is therefore in accordance with the Framework in this respect.
Ecology and Bio-Diversity 6.69 The site is not part of, nor in proximity to, any ecologically designated area. There are also no statutorily protected wildlife sites within 1km of the site.
6.70 A Phase I Habitat Survey and Protected Species Survey have been conducted and accompany the application, and these confirm that the majority of the site is short- grazed, semi-improved grassland that is species poor, of low ecological value and contains only common and widespread plant species. The hedgerows within the site are representative of UK BAP Priority Habitat but none are important in respect of the wildlife criteria of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. The mature trees and shrubs add structural diversity and support breeding birds but are of local value only.
6.71 There is no evidence of badgers or newts being present on the site, but there are trees suitable for roosting bats and the site supports suitable habitat for edge-feeding foraging bats.
6.72 The site does has some important and valuable landscape features, such as mature trees and hedgerows, but these can be retained and incorporated in the development. As part of the application, the applicant plans to make additional environmental improvements including an enhanced landscape buffer along the eastern perimeter of the site.
6.73 The proposals respond positively to the expectations of the Framework in this respect.
Ground Conditions 6.74 A Geo-Environmental Site Assessment has been carried out in support of the development and accompanies the application. It concludes that based on its findings, the site is considered to be suitable for residential development and presents a low risk with respect to any adverse impact upon human health and Controlled Waters.
41 6.75 There are consequently no contamination or geo-technical constraints that demonstrably outweigh the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Noise 6.76 The site is not situated adjacent to any potential bad neighbour uses, such as heavy industry, that would cause noise and disturbance to existing or future residents. The site is therefore suitable for residential development.
6.77 There are consequently no difficulties presented in relation to adverse noise levels affecting the proposed housing development.
Conserving the Historic Environment
Below Ground Assets 6.78 The application is accompanied by an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment which has been undertaken to identify all known or potential archaeological or historical sites within the application site.
6.79 The available evidence indicates that the archaeological potential of the site is not sufficient to preclude the proposed development; there are no previously-recorded archaeological sites within the site area; no above-ground archaeology was observed during a site inspection and no buried archaeological remains were uncovered during the trial pit excavation.
6.80 The potential nevertheless exists for archaeological remains to survive below ground and as such, a programme of suitable evaluation and monitoring will be undertaken, with appropriate mitigation measures and recording in the event that any remains or finds are encountered during the construction phase of development.
6.81 Development on this basis will accord with the provisions and advice of the Framework.
Above Ground Heritage Assets 6.82 In accordance with Paragraph 128 of the Framework, a detailed heritage assessment has been undertaken to inform the design and form of the proposed development and to assess its effect upon the significance of the heritage assets within the vicinity of the application site.
6.83 In summary, the application proposals will have no direct impact on designated heritage assets or their settings.
Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development
6.84 The development proposals have been assessed against the various relevant Core Planning Principles and topic-related chapters of the Framework (Paragraphs 18 - 219). Informed by the preceding analysis, it is appropriate to conclude by considering the Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is to be taken as a ‘golden thread’ running through plan-making and decision-taking (para 14).
6.85 In this regard, it is accepted the first strand of the presumption in relation to decision- taking does not apply, as the development does not accord with the Settlement
42 Boundary and Open Countryside designation (Policies G2, G5 and H2) within the DLP. However, the proposal is found to be in accordance with all other policies of the development plan.
6.86 In respect of the second consideration for decision-takers set out within paragraph 14, it has been demonstrated that relevant policies of the development plan, specifically the housing and settlement boundary policies of the DLP which the proposals conflict with, are out-of-date and by reference to paragraph 49 of the Framework, not up-to-date.
6.87 Therefore, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole.
6.88 In this regard, the application is accompanied by a comprehensive suite of supporting information, considered above, which demonstrates that the proposed development will not result in any harm in terms of environmental, traffic or heritage.
6.89 The development will result in extremely localised landscape effects which are unavoidable due to the proposed change in land use. Notwithstanding this, the scheme will be designed in such a way to integrate positively with the rest of the settlement with appropriate landscaping, buffers and high quality design. The development will, therefore, carefully respect its impact on the landscape.
6.90 The relationship with existing dwellings has also been carefully considered in preparing the indicative layout, which seeks to ensure that no adverse impact will result in terms of a loss of privacy, daylight/sunlight or any other nuisance. These matters can be considered in more detail through Reserved Matters submissions, but the illustrative masterplan demonstrates this can be achieved, working within set parameters.
6.91 The construction impact may have cause some adverse effects, but these are short term and temporary in nature, and local to the site and immediate area.
6.92 In any event best practice measures, including restricted hours of working, will be put in place and the development will be registered under the ‘Considerate Constructor’ scheme to mitigate any adverse temporary impacts in terms of noise and vibration, pollution control, air quality, the operation of construction traffic, plant and machinery and the management of construction wastes. This is likely to include controls on working hours, dust suppression measures including damping down materials and haulage roads during dry periods and covering trailers. The proper maintenance of plant and restrictions on burning waste, the provision of wheel washing facilities and street sweeping if required will also implemented.
6.93 Full details of these tried and tested measures to minimise construction impact can be secured through a construction management plan prior to the commencement of development.
6.94 Overall therefore, the proposals will cause limited adverse effects.
6.95 To be balanced against these limited effects are the benefits, which are considerable. The benefits of the proposals include:
43 • Creation of a high quality residential environmental which respects the character of Longridge
• Improvements in housing mix and choice – The proposed development of 220 dwellings will provide a balanced mix of dwellings providing a choice of type and size in response to the identified housing demand and market assessment for Longridge, with an emphasis on housing for the elderly, a number of smaller homes for younger people and a range of family housing offering a choice of accommodation.
• Provision of older-persons housing – The proposals include the provision of bungalows for accommodation by older people, of which a percentage will be affordable.
• Provision of new public open space – a high quality landscape setting and external surfacing and enclosure materials is proposed, along with a Locally Equipped Area for Play (LEAP). This will be provided in close proximity to the proposed housing, along with more informal recreation space and landscaping to meet the needs of the new residents.
• The retention of existing trees and hedgerows – The proposals are based around the existing landscape features of the site and seeks to integrate them successfully into the overall design. The existing hedgerow and tree line running broadly east to west across the site is retained and forms a ‘green corridor’ through the proposed scheme.
• Ecological enhancement opportunities – The landscaping strategy for the site will allow for ecological enhancement and the surface water balancing pond and habitat area proposed adjacent to the existing watercourse to the west of the site entrance road will result in a net benefit to biodiversity.
• Creation of new pedestrian links to the village centre and countryside – The site will provide for a new pedestrian link through the site, linking it in to the centre and to the wider countryside.
• Development in a highly sustainable location – The development forms a natural extension to the east of Longridge. The centre of Longridge with its shops and services is within easy walking or cycling distance of the site, which reduces reliance on the private car.
• A sustainable increase in population within Longridge to sustain and support the vitality and viability of the village as a Key Service Centre and its businesses, services and facilities;
• Support for the transition to a low carbon future – The proposal will incorporate enhancements to the building fabric and services which will reduce the lifetime energy consumption of the development by 14.6% over the current Building Regulations Standards, which is in excess of existing planning policy requirements.
44 • Increased Council Tax revenue and receipt of New Homes Bonus payments to further invest back into the Longridge community.
6.96 There are no adverse impacts which would significantly demonstrably outweigh these benefits which the development will bring. Therefore paragraph 14 of the Framework directs that planning permission should be granted.
Other Material Considerations
6.97 As referred to, there are a number of other relevant material considerations which are to be the determination of the application. They comprise national policy and emerging local documents.
6.98 The weight to be applied to the emerging Core Strategy is limited by its present stage of preparation, but it is nevertheless instructive in terms of the ‘direction of travel’ of emerging strategic policy in the Borough and the minimum quantum of housing growth that is required to respond to objectively assessed needs, both overall and locationally.
6.99 In particular the evidence and emerging chosen-option policy (now proposed to be amended in light of the appointed Inspector’s concerns):
• recognises that, a significant proportion of the growth within the Borough will continue to be directed to the three Key Service Centres as the most sustainable locations within Ribble Valley;
• identifies a significant shortage of affordable housing across the Borough and in Longridge in particular;
• recognises that Longridge is a sustainable settlement offering a range of services consistent with the function of a Key Service Centre. As such the settlement is clearly capable of accommodating an appropriate scale of new housing development;
• recognises the residual need for in excess of 620 new homes in Longridge beyond those already consented; and
• confirms that there is a requirement to identify greenfield sites beyond settlement boundaries to accommodate future housing needs of Longridge.
6.100 On this basis and in consideration of the advice in Government’s web based Planning Practice Guidance. The proposals are afforded positive support by the emerging Core Strategy and respond positively to its provisions.
Conclusion on the Assessment of Other Material Considerations
6.101 There are no other material considerations that would weight against the grant of planning permission for the proposed development. Material considerations have been identified and they positively confirm that the grant of planning permission would be appropriate.
45 6.102 An assessment of the scheme against the Framework has concluded that it will clearly be sustainable and compliant with the core planning principles and responding positively to each of the policy aspects of the Framework. The conclusion therefore is that the development is consistent with the policies set out in the Framework and the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies and directs the grant of planning permission.
46 7. The Planning Balance and Conclusions
7.1 Under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the application is to be determined in accordance with the adopted statutory development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This legislative basis for determining the application remains unaltered by the Framework, but clear direction is provided as to the weight to be attributed to development plan policies that may not adequately reflect the Framework, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development is to be a ‘golden thread’ through decision making.
7.2 It is accepted that the development proposal conflict with adopted Local Plan in respect of its location outside the defined settlement boundary of Longridge, and within the open countryside. However, those boundaries are manifestly out of date since they no longer reflect current circumstances or cater for existing and future housing needs, those policies, and indeed other policies relating to housing development within the adopted Local Plan, are clearly out-of-date and inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (‘The Framework’) and the weight to be attributed is therefore limited.
7.3 In light of the forgoing, the Borough Council can attribute significant weight in its overall assessment to the following:
• The proposals are in accordance with the overall strategy, and strategic, design and technical policies of the adopted Local Plan, as far as they are relevant to the proposals;
• Despite its recent assertions to the contrary, the LPA is unable to robustly demonstrate a deliverable 5-year land supply of housing and hence the aforementioned policies are also not up-to-date
• The development will make a valuable contribution to meeting the Borough’s housing needs, and those of Longridge specifically, including within the first 5 years. The residual need for over 620 new homes in Longridge, which cannot be accommodated without expansion of its settlement boundaries.
• The proposals will create a high quality residential environmental which respects the character of Longridge. It will also provide much needed affordable housing, at a level consistent with established and emerging policy.
• support sustainable social and economic development by providing a number of local employment opportunities during the construction phase and working with local schools and other agencies to establish apprenticeships for local people;
• The development accords with the principles of sustainable development as set out in the Framework and there are no policies in the Framework that would militate a refusal of planning permission;
7.4 Overall, the development is consistent with the policies set out in the Framework and the presumption in favour of sustainable development is fully applicable. There are no adverse impacts which significantly and demonstrably outweigh the notable and multiple
47 benefits which flow from the development and planning permission should, therefore, be granted without delay as instructed by the Framework. This material consideration, and others that lend further support to the proposal, clearly outweigh the conflict with the development plan, which is to be afforded limited weight in the planning balance.
48 Appendix 1: EIA Screening Opinion
RIBBLE VALLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL
please ask for:Daniela Ripa Council Offices direct line: Church Walk 01200 414518 CLITHEROE e-mail:[email protected] Lancashire BB7 2RA my ref:3/2014/0262 your ref: Switchboard: 01200 425111 Land north of Dilworth Lane, Longridge Fax: 01200 414487 th date:24 April 2014 DX: Clitheroe 15157 www.ribblevalley.gov.uk
Dear Mr Bell,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACTS Screening opinion under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011
Proposed residential development with associated public open space, access, landscaping and commercial/community uses on land to the north of Dilworth Lane, Longridge
I refer to the above request received by the local planning authority on 25th March 2014 for a screening opinion pursuant to Regulation 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. The request letter was accompanied by nine appendices: Appendix A: Site Plan; Appendix B: Topographical Plan; Appendix C: Illustrative Concept Plan; Appendix D: Tree Survey Report; Appendix E: Archaeological Desk Based Assessment; Appendix F: Air Quality Assessment; Appendix G: Ecological Appraisal; Appendix H: Flood Risk Assessment; and Appendix I: Desk Study.
This letter constitutes the formal screening opinion of the local planning authority in respect of the above development based on the information provided. In accordance with the Regulations and having regards to the National Planning Practice Guidance Annex: Indicative Screening Thresholds (Paragraph 057 Reference ID: 4-057- 20140306) the Local Planning Authority has adopted the screening opinion that the proposal is not EIA development, the reasoning for which is set out below.
Reasoning:
The proposed development comprises of approximately 240 dwellings, public open space, access, landscaping and potential associated small scale commercial/community uses on a site measuring 10.02 hectares to the north of Dilworth Lane within an area designated as open countryside in the Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan. The proposed development constitutes an 'urban development project' under Column 1 Paragraph 10(b) of Schedule 2 and the site area exceeds the threshold of 0.5ha in Column 2. The proposal is therefore Schedule 2 development. However, the site is not within a 'sensitive area' as defined by the Regulations.
Chief Executive: Marshal Scott CPFA Directors: John Heap B.Eng. C. Eng. MICE, Jane Pearson CPFA The local planning authority is required to assess whether the development is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location by screening the Schedule 2 development against the selection criteria in Schedule 3 (the characteristics of the development, the location of the development and the characteristics of the potential impact).
Characteristics of Development
The proposed development comprises of approximately 240 dwellings, public open space, access, landscaping and potential associated small scale commercial/community uses on a site measuring 10.02 hectares. In respect of cumulation with other development, the local planning authority has considered the cumulative impact with the land identified in blue on the submitted site plan, which could accommodate approximately 40 dwellings. It is understood that the wider 16.28 hectare site could provide approximately 280 dwellings with associated works.
The proposed use of natural resources including land and production of waste during the construction process would be relative to that normally associated with urban infrastructure projects. There would be an increase in noise, disturbance, emissions and vibration resulting from construction works, but the extent of the impact is considered to be localised and there are no significant risks or hazards that would arise subject to appropriate management.
Location of Development
The site comprises agricultural land within an area designated as open countryside in the Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan. Longridge is identified in the draft Ribble Valley Core Strategy as one of the three main settlements to accommodate new residential development in the Borough and part of the site lies adjacent to existing residential dwellings.
The site is not located in a particularly environmentally sensitive or vulnerable location and has no known archaeological significance, but is located within a mineral safeguarding area and may contain sandstone. A minerals assessment would therefore be required with any planning application. The site forms part of the setting of the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, however the nature of the proposed development is such that it would not have a significant effect on its setting. Localised impacts on the setting and views in respect of both the AONB and Longridge Conservation Area would be assessed through the submission of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and Heritage Statement with any planning application.
Spade Mill Reservoir lies to the east of the site and is a designated Biological Heritage Site of local importance. There is also a pond to the north of the site and potentially ephemeral ponds within the site. These, along with trees and hedgerows within the site, indicate that the site could form a transit zone for protected species. The proposed development therefore has the potential to impact upon protected species including amphibians, reptiles, bats and birds. Comprehensive surveys should be submitted with any planning application and consideration would need to be afforded to potential impact on Spade Mill Reservoir, including during the construction phase.
Characteristics of Potential Impact
The development would introduce built form into previously undeveloped open countryside and whilst it would therefore have an urbanising effect, this would not
Chief Executive: Marshal Scott CPFA Directors: John Heap B.Eng. C. Eng. MICE, Jane Pearson CPFA amount to a significant effect, when considered alone and in cumulation. There would be an increase in noise, disturbance, emissions and vibration resulting from construction works, but the extent of the impact, including cumulative, is considered to be localised. The development would not be a major development of more than local importance and having regards to the characteristics and location of the development, it is concluded that that the characteristics of potential impact, when considered alone or in cumulation, would be unlikely to have significant effects on the environment.
Conclusion
Having screened the proposal against the selection criteria in Schedule 3 and evaluated the potential significance of the likely environmental effects, including in cumulation with other development, the local planning authority is of the opinion that the proposed development is not likely to have significant effects on the environment and as such, is not EIA development within the meaning of the Regulations.
It is noted that comprehensive ecological surveys, along with appropriate mitigation, enhancement and compensatory measures where necessary, would be required to be submitted with any subsequent planning applications.
You are advised that the local planning authority’s opinion on the likelihood of significant environmental effects is reached only for the purpose of adopting this screening opinion under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011. This screening opinion is given without prejudice to any subsequent consideration by the planning authority through the planning application process of the impacts of the proposed development and assessment of the acceptability or otherwise of the proposed development relative to development plan policy and other material considerations.
Should you wish to discuss the above, or require further clarification on planning application submission requirements, please contact my planning officer, Daniela Ripa, on the direct line number at the head of this letter.
Yours sincerely,
John Macholc (Chief Planning Officer)
Chief Executive: Marshal Scott CPFA Directors: John Heap B.Eng. C. Eng. MICE, Jane Pearson CPFA Appendix 2: Scope of submission
Dilworth Lane, Longridge Supporting Document Schedule
Doc no. Document Prepared by
01 Application Forms Turley
03 Planning Statement Turley (including Affordable Housing Statement)
04 Design and Access Statement Randall Thorp
Reading Agricultural 05 Agricultural Land & Soil Resource Consultants Ltd
06 Air Quality Assessment REC
07 Archaeological Assessment CgMS
08 Ecology Report Avian Ecology
09 Flood Risk Assessment Ironside Farrar
10 Geo-environmental Assessment Betts Associates
11 Landscape Appraisal Randall Thorp
12 Minerals Assessment Betts Associates
13 Noise Assessment REC
14 Energy Statement Energist
15 Statement of Community Engagement Turley
16 Transport Assessment Curtins
17 Travel Plan Curtins
18 Utilities Statement TDS
19 Arboricultural Statement TBA
20 Draft Heads of Terms (s106 Agreement) Turley
Dilworth Lane, Longridge Supporting Document Schedule
Plans for Approval Plan reference Prepared by
1. Site Location Plan 492B 21 Randall Thorp
2. Parameter Plans 492B 20B Randall Thorp
3. Access Plans TPMA1178/010C Curtins
4. Technical Highway Plans TPMA1178/011B Curtins
Indicative Plans Plan reference Prepared by
1. Illustrative Masterplan 492B 06C Randall Thorp
2. Indicative/sketch site sections 492B 10 Randall Thorp
3. Indicative Phasing Plan Refer to page 69 of DAS Randall Thorp
Appendix 3: Site Location Plan
Appendix 4: Core Strategy Option 1D
¡ ¢ £ £ ¤ £ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ¨ ¡ ¨ £ ¤ ¨ ¨ © ¨ ¤ £ ¡
! " # $ % $ & $ ' ( ! $ # # ) # ' '
& & % % & * +
# ' ' , - . - / 0 1 2 - 3 4 % 4 5 6 4 - 7 8 1 4 9 0 3 0 3 -
: ; < = ; > ? < @ A ? B C @D @ E F ; > E @ A B < B A D G H D D G B < B @ E ; > B I H @ > H < B H ; J E B H < F G K A B < @L B A
J < ; I D G B = M : B L @ A B > F B N H E B O
P Q = H > A H D M @ RS ; < D G = H > B T = ; S B < = H > B K U M O
* V 6 5 6 W 4 - 5 9 X 4 9 W X Y 1 0 4 - 3 4 9 6 / 9 X X Z - X 6 3 [ \ - 3 - ] 9 4 X 0 ] 6 5 - 6 ^
_ G B I H ` ; < @D a ; J D G B H < B H ; J E B H < F G @ E F b < < B > D R a b > A B L B R ; c B A H > A @ > H < B R H D @L B R a
c < ; I @ > B > D R ; F H D @ ; > @ > D B < I E ; J @D E H c c < ; H F G D ; = ; > ? < @ A ? B Q _ G B H < B H S H E E B B >
D ; N B J H @ < R a E b @D H N R B A b < @ > ? D G B d e = f f H E E B E E I B > D E b E D H @ > H N @ R @D a F < @D B < @ H C
D G ; b ? G D G @ E A @ A G @ ? G R @ ? G D H c ; D B > D @ H R R H F g ; J @ > J < H E D < b F D b < B Q _ G B H < B H ; J E B H < F G
I @ ? G D N B F ; > E D < H @ > B A N a D ; c ; ? < H c G a @ > D B < I E ; J @D E J b R R A B L B R ; c I B > D c ; D B > D @ H R C
G ; S B L B < D G @ E F ; b R A H F F ; I I ; A H D B D G B < B h b @ < B A c < ; L @ E @ ; > @ > = ; > ? < @ A ? B J ; <
M B L B R ; c I B > D d D < H D B ? a ; c D @ ; > ; > B Q _ G B H < B H S ; b R A c < ; L @ A B H > B i D B > E @ ; > D ;
D G B E B D D R B I B > D H > A @ E R ; F H D B A @ > H E b E D H @ > H N R B A B L B R ; c I B > D R ; F H D @ ; > C
H F F ; < A @ > ? D ; D G B j j d k l m < B h b @ < B I B > D E Q
n o p o p o o p o o p
d P M q r f _ P d : r M q s q = j t q _ d _ r f _ q u v j _ P U
o p o n
= u r P M u q f r q f d : d q f r e
w B > B B A D ; c < ; L @ A B x y ; J D G B A B L B R ; c I B > D R H > A @ > = ; > ? < @ A ? B b > A B < D G @ E
M B L B R ; c I B > D d D < H D B ? a ; c D @ ; > Q _ G @ E B h b H D B E D ; z x A S B R R @ > ? E Q
P J D G @ E ; c D @ ; > S B < B J ; b > A D ; N B D G B { c < B J B < < B A ; c D @ ; > | H > A D H g B > J ; < S H < A @ > D G B
n
c b N R @ F H D @ ; > L B < E @ ; > ; J D G B ; < B d D < H D B ? a C @D @ E H > D @ F @ c H D B A D G H D D G @ E H < B H ; J
E B H < F G F ; b R A F ; > D < @ N b D B R H > A D ; H E E @ E D @ > D G B J b RJ @ R I B > D ; J D G @ E < B h b @ < B I B > D Q
} > A B < D G @ E M B L B R ; c I B > D d D < H D B ? a ; c D @ ; > D G B < B S ; b R A N B H ? < B H D B < c B < F B > D H ? B
; J A B L B R ; c I B > D @ > D G B E B < L @ F B F B > D < B E S G @ R E D E D @ R R H R R ; S @ > ? E ; I B A B L B R ; c I B > D
@ > D G B L @ R R H ? B E Q
f RD G ; b ? G H D D G @ E E D H ? B D G B H < B H @ E E B B > H E H c ; D B > D @ H R H < B H ; J E B H < F G C H E
B i c R H @ > B A C @D @ E > ; D F B < D H @ > D G H D D G @ E c @ B F B ; J R H > A C ; < @ > A B B A H > a ; J D G B H < B H E
@ > F R b A B A S @D G @ > D G @ E H c c B > A @ i C S ; b R A N B A B L B R ; c B A Q M B L B R ; c I B > D ; J H < B H E > ; D
@ A B > D @J @ B A G B < B I @ ? G D H R E ; D H g B c R H F B Q _ G @ E H c c B > A @ i @ E A B E @ ? > B A D ; ? @L B H >
@ > A @ F H D @ ; > ; J D G B R B L B R ; J A B L B R ; c I B > D D G H D I @ ? G D D H g B c R H F B b > A B < D G @ E ; c D @ ; >
@ > H c H < D @ F b R H < R ; F H D @ ; > Q _ G B H < B H E ; J E B H < F G H < B > ; D H R R ; F H D B A ; < c < B ~
p
A B D B < I @ > B A @ > D B < I E ; J H c R H > > @ > ? H c c R @ F H D @ ; > Q ; < A ; B E D G @ E A ; F b I B > D
c < ; L @ A B H A A @D @ ; > H R S B @ ? G D D ; H E @D B @J H c R H > > @ > ? H c c R @ F H D @ ; > S B < B D ; N B
E b N I @D D B A C H > A A B D B < I @ > B A C @ > ; > B ; J D G B E B H < B H E Q f E c < B L @ ; b E R a A @ E F b E E B A
D G B H F D b H R R H > A D G H D S @ R R N B H R R ; F H D B A J ; < A B L B R ; c I B > D S @ R R N B E B D ; b D @ > D G B
e ; b E @ > ? H > A q I c R ; a I B > D M B L B R ; c I B > D M j M C S G @ F G @ E c H < D ; J D G B = ; F H R
n
M B L B R ; c I B > D : < H I B S ; < g Q _ G @ E M j M C R @ g B D G B ; < B d D < H D B ? a A ; F b I B > D C S @ R R
G H L B D ; c H E E D G < ; b ? G D G < B B E D H ? B E ; J A ; F b I B > D c < ; A b F D @ ; > H > A S @ R R N B S @ A B R a
F ; > E b RD B A b c ; > Q _ G B J @ > H R M j M A ; F b I B > D S @ R R H R E ; G H L B D ; G H L B N B B >
B i H I @ > B A N a H > P > A B c B > A B > D P > E c B F D ; < J < ; I D G B j R H > > @ > ? P > E c B F D ; < H D B
p
K j P d O Q
¡ ¢ £ £ ¤ £ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ¨ ¡ ¨ £ ¤ ¨ ¨ © ¨ ¤ £ ¡
" & ! $ % + & & % % & * + , # ' ' ! $ # #
¡ ¢ £ ¡ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ « « ® ª ¦ ¯ ¯ ° « ± ² ° ° « ¥ ³ ¡ ¡ ´ § ¨ ¡ ´ £ µ ¦ ° ¶ ¦ µ « £ µ « · ¡ ¶ ¸ ¹ º º º ¹ » ¼ ½ ¹ º ¾ ¿ ´ ° ¥ À º ¹ º
Å Æ Å Æ Æ Ç Å
Á Â Ã Ä Ä
Å Æ Ç È É É Ê
Appendix 5: Core Strategy Option 2D
¡ ¢ £ £ ¤ £ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ¨ ¡ ¨ £ ¤ ¨ ¨ © ¨ ¤ £ ¡
! " # $ % $ & $ ' ( ! $ # $ ) # ' '
& & % % & * +
# ' ' , - . - / 0 1 2 - 3 4 % 4 5 6 4 - 7 8 1 4 9 0 3 4 : 0
; < = > ? @ A ? > B C ? D C > E F G > H > I A J K > < C B C ? D C > E F A J C L A < M N O A < E ? L = E > P A Q I = R >
A < T L = > ? > = D T D U A Q T U A ? = > H > I A J K > < C P LC V W X Y A U = > H > I A J K > < C U A Q T > = L < C A
S S S
C V > C A P < Z ; < = > ? C V L T A J C L A < N O A < E ? L = E > P A Q I = T > > C V > V L E V > T C I > H > I A U
= > H > I A J K > < C C V D < D < F P V > ? > > I T > L < C V > R A ? A Q E V Z [ V L T A Q I = R > = > I LH > ? > =
S
C V ? A Q E V U A Q ? K D L < D ? > D T A U T > D ? V Z
S
\ Z O D < = D C G L IP A ? C V O D < > ] O A P > ? O D < > ^ M G _
\ \ Z O D < = D C > < = A U ` A Q E V C A < a A D = ^ M b _
\ \ \ Z O D < = B A Q C V A U O A P > ? O D < > N D = c d I T C A < O A = E > ^ M e _
\ f Z @ V D J > I ` L I I ^ M g _
* h 6 5 6 i 4 - 5 9 j 4 9 i j k 1 0 4 - 3 4 9 6 / 9 j j l - j 6 3 m n - 3 - o 9 4 j 0 o 6 5 - 6 p
[ V L T g ? > > < U L > I = D ? > D A U T > D ? V L T Q ? ? > < C IF Q T > = D T U D ? K I D < = Z \ C L T
S S
J ? > = A K L < D < C IF U I D C L < C > ? K T A U LC T C A J A E ? D J V F N D < = LC ? L T > T E > < C IF Q J V L I I Z \ C L T
T LC Q D C > = I A T > C A D ? > T > ? H A L ? D < = P A Q I = > q C > < = C V > > q L T C L < E T > C C I > K > < C
S
R A Q < = D ? F > D T C P D ? = T Z [ V > D ? > D L T I A T > IF ? > I D C > = C A C V > T > C C I > K > < C D < = A Q I =
S S
D A K K A = D C > D I I C V > < > > T T D ? F = > H > I A J K > < C ? > r Q L ? > = Q < = > ? C V L T
S S S
G > H > I A J K > < C B C ? D C > E F A J C L A < ^ A J C L A < M _ Z
* h 6 5 6 i 4 - 5 9 j 4 9 i j k 1 0 4 - 3 4 9 6 / 9 j j l - j 6 3 m n - 3 - o 9 4 j 0 o 6 5 - 6 p
[ V > K D c A ? LC F A U C V L T D ? > D A U T > D ? V L T Q ? ? > < C IF Q < = > H > I A J > = L < D ? > I D C LH > IF
S S
J ? A K L < > < C I A D C L A < ^ L < C > ? K T A U LC T D J J ? A D V C A O A < E ? L = E > _ Z [ V > D ? > D U D L ? > =
S S
P > I I = Q ? L < E C V > B ` O d d D T T > T T K > < C T Q T C D L < D R L I LC F ? LC > ? L D N C V A Q E V C V L T = L =
S
V L E V I L E V C D J A C > < C L D I I D A U L < U ? D T C ? Q C Q ? > Z [ V > D ? > D K L E V C R > A < T C ? D L < > = R F
S s S S
C A J A E ? D J V F L < C > ? K T A U LC T U Q I I = > H > I A J K > < C J A C > < C L D I N V A P > H > ? C V L T D ? > D A U
T > D ? V A Q I = D A K K A = D C > C V > ? > r Q L ? > = J ? A H L T L A < L < O A < E ? L = E > U A ?
S S S S
G > H > I A J K > < C B C ? D C > E F A J C L A < C P A Z [ V > D ? > D P A Q I = J ? A H L = > D < > q C > < T L A < C A
C V > T > C C I > K > < C D < = L T I A D C > = L < D T Q T C D L < D R I > = > H > I A J K > < C I A D C L A < D A ? = L < E
S S S S
C A t t B W u v Z
* h 6 5 6 i 4 - 5 9 j 4 9 i j k 1 0 4 - 3 4 9 6 / 9 j j l - j 6 3 m n - 3 - o 9 4 j 0 o 6 5 - 6 p
[ V L T g ? > > < U L > I = D ? > D A U T > D ? V L T Q ? ? > < C IF Q T > = D T U D ? K I D < = Z \ C L T U I D C L < C > ? K T
S S
A U LC T C A J A E ? D J V F D < = L T T Q ? ? A Q < = > = J ? > = A K L < D < C IF R F U L > I = T N D < = D T K D I I
D K A Q < C A U ? > T L = > < C L D I = > H > I A J K > < C Z [ V > ? > D ? > I A < E w ? D < E > H L > P T L < C A D < = A Q C
A U C V > D ? > D D < = D < F = > H > I A J K > < C C V D C C A A J I D > L < C V L T D ? > D A U T > D ? V K L E V C
s S S
< > > = C A R > T ? > > < > = D < = I D < = T D J > = C A ? > = Q > D < F D = H > ? T > L K J D C A < C V >
S S S S
T Q ? ? A Q < = L < E I D < = T D J > Z
S
* h 6 5 6 i 4 - 5 9 j 4 9 i j k 1 0 4 - 3 4 9 6 / 9 j j l - j 6 3 m n - 3 - o 9 4 j 0 o 6 5 - 6 p '
[ V L T D ? > D A U T > D ? V L T J ? > = A K L < D < C IF g ? > > < U L > I = P LC V D T K D I I > I > K > < C A U
S
x ? A P < U L > I = I D < = L < C V > K L = = I > A U C V > D ? > D ^ L < C V > U A ? K A U D V A Q T > N P V L V L T L <
S
< > > = A U ? > J D L ? _ Z [ V > D ? > D N P V L V T I A J > T L < K D < F = LU U > ? > < C = L ? > C L A < T D P D F
S S
U ? A K C V > > < C ? > A U C V > D ? > D N L T T Q ? ? A Q < = > = R F ? > T L = > < C L D I = > H > I A J K > < C N D
S
T V A A I N D V Q ? V D < = L T I A T > C A D G L T C ? L C P L = > O A D I t I D < D I I A D C > =
S S S S S S S
> K J I A F K > < C I D < = T LC > Z [ V > A < T > ? H D C L A < D ? > D A H > ? T V D IU A U C V > D ? > D A U
S S
y z { | } ~ ~ ~ { | } ~ ~ { { ~
¡ ¢ £ £ ¤ £ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ¨ ¡ ¨ £ ¤ ¨ ¨ © ¨ ¤ £ ¡
T > D ? V Z \ U = > H > I A J K > < C P > ? > C A C D > J I D > V > ? > N L < U ? D T C ? Q C Q ? > = > H > I A J K > < C T
S s S S
P A Q I = R > < > > = > = T J > LU L D I IF V L E V P D F T L K J ? A H > K > < C T N J D ? C L Q I D ? IF = Q > C A C V >
S S S
I A T > J ? A q L K LC F A U C V > T V A A I Z [ V > ? > T > ? H A L ? C A C V > ? > D ? L T D @ A Q < C F x L A I A E L D I
S S S
` > ? LC D E > T LC > D < = C V > D ? > D LC T > IU L T P LC V L < D I D < = U L I I E D T A < > Z
@ B \ G b a d [ \ B e a G b f b O t b [ B [ a d [ b g t [ \ M
O g a \ G g b d a b d B e B b d a @ `
; < = > ? C V L T @ A ? > B C ? D C > E F G > H > I A J K > < C B C ? D C > E F A J C L A < LC L T < > > T T D ? F C A
S
J ? A H L = > X = P > I I L < E T L < O A < E ? L = E > Z
\ U C V L T G > H > I A J K > < C B C ? D C > E F A J C L A < ^ A J C L A < M _ P > ? > U A Q < = C A R > C V > J ? > U > ? ? > =
A J C L A < ¡ D < = C D > < U A ? P D ? = L < C V > J Q R I L D C L A < H > ? T L A < A U C V > @ A ? > B C ? D C > E F D T
s S
C V > D J J ? A D V C A = > H > I A J K > < C L < a L R R I > f D I I > F A H > ? C V > < > q C ¢ F > D ? T N C V > ? >
S
P A Q I = R > D E ? > D C > ? J > ? > < C D E > A U = > H > I A J K > < C L < O A < E ? L = E > P V L I T C T C L I I
S
D I I A P L < E T A K > = > H > I A J K > < C L < C V > T > ? H L > > < C ? > T D < = C V > H L I I D E > T Z
S S
d IC V A Q E V D C C V L T T C D E > C V > D ? > D T D ? > T > > < D T J A C > < C L D I D ? > D T A U T > D ? V N D T
S
> q J I D L < > = N LC L T < A C > ? C D L < C V D C C V > T > J L > > T A U I D < = N A ? L < = > > = D < F A U C V >
S S
D ? > D T L < I Q = > = P LC V L < C V L T D J J > < = L q N P A Q I = R > = > H > I A J > = Z [ V L T D J J > < = L q L T
S
= > T L E < > = C A E LH > D < L < = L D C L A < A U C V > I > H > I A U = > H > I A J K > < C C V D C K L E V C C D >
S s
J I D > Q < = > ? C V L T A J C L A < L < D J D ? C L Q I D ? I A D C L A < Z [ V > D ? > D T D ? > < A C D I I A D C > = A ?
S S S S
J ? > w = > C > ? K L < > = L < C > ? K T A U D J I D < < L < E D J J I L D C L A < Z A ? = A > T C V L T = A Q K > < C
S S
J ? A H L = > D = = LC L A < D I P > L E V C C A D T LC > LU D J I D < < L < E D J J I L D C L A < P > ? > C A R >
S
T Q R K LC C > = N D < = = > C > ? K L < > = N L < A < > A U C V > D ? > D T Z d T J ? > H L A Q T IF = L T Q T T > = C V >
S
D C Q D I I D < = C V D C P L I I R > D I I A D C > = U A ? = > H > I A J K > < C P L I I R > T > C A Q C L < C V >
S S
` A Q T L < E D < = b K J I A F K > < C G > H > I A J K > < C G t G N P V L V L T J D ? C A U C V > O A D I
S S
G > H > I A J K > < C e ? D K > P A ? Z [ V L T G t G N I L > C V > @ A ? > B C ? D C > E F = A Q K > < C N P L I I
s s S
V D H > C A J D T T C V ? A Q E V C V ? > > T C D E > T A U = A Q K > < C J ? A = Q C L A < D < = P L I I R > P L = > IF
S S
A < T Q IC > = Q J A < Z [ V > U L < D I G t G = A Q K > < C P L I I D I T A V D H > C A V D H > R > > <
S S
> q D K L < > = R F D < \ < = > J > < = > < C \ < T J > C A ? U ? A K C V > t I D < < L < E \ < T J > C A ? D C >
S S
^ t \ B _ Z
¡ ¢ £ £ ¤ £ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ¨ ¡ ¨ £ ¤ ¨ ¨ © ¨ ¤ £ ¡
" & ! $ % + & & % % & * + , # ' ' ! $ # $
¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ¥ § ª « ¦ ¬ ® ¯ ° ± ² ± ¦ ³ ± ´ ° ¬ µ µ ¶ ± · ¸ ¶ ¶ ± « ¹ § ¦ § º ® ¥ § º © » ¬ ¶ ¼ ¬ » ± © » ± ½ § ¼ ¾ ¿ À À À ¿ Á Â Ã ¿ À Ä Å º ¶ « Æ À ¿ À
~ } | } Ë } Ì ~ ~ Ë Ì Ì Í ~ Ë } } | } }
Ç È É Ê Ê
} Ë Ì ~ Í } Î Ï ~ } Ï ~
£ Appendix 6: Draft Heads of Terms
DILWORTH LANE, LONGRIDGE Report: Draft Section 106 Agreement - Heads of Terms Prepared by: Turley Date: 06 June 2014
Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Affordable Housing Provision 4
3. Education Contribution 5
4. Sustainable Transport 6
5. Open Space 7
6. Covenants by the Council and the County Council 8
Contact Greg Dickson [email protected] Client Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd
June 2014
1. Introduction
1.1 This statement has been prepared by Turley on behalf of Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd (North West) in support of its outline planning application for residential development on land to the north of Dilworth Lane, Longridge:
“Outline planning application for the development of land for the erection of up to no. 220 dwellings with all matters reserved, save for access.”
1.2 The document sets out the draft Heads of Terms of potential Section 106 planning obligations which may be entered into in connection with the proposed development.
1.3 The Heads of Terms will be the subject of further discussions once Ribble Valley Borough Council (RVBC) has had the opportunity to fully appraise the planning application. These draft Heads of Terms should therefore be viewed as a starting basis for those discussions and the negotiation and progression of a Section 106 Agreement, rather than a committed set of obligations. A first draft of a proposed Section 106 Agreement will be produced once the matters set out below have been finalised.
1.4 In light of the above, the applicant reserves the right to amend the Heads of Terms as discussions progress during the course of the determination of the planning application.
1.5 In order to comply with the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended), each obligation will need to be justified as directly related to the development, necessary in order for the development to proceed and be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
Interaction with Planning Conditions
1.6 It is important that any Section 106 Agreement sits alongside and is read in conjunction with the conditions attached to any planning permission granted. Therefore, the applicant will seek to discuss the schedule of draft planning conditions alongside the S106 obligations.
General
1.7 The S106 Agreement will contain standard provisions relating to conditionality (linked to the grant and implementation of planning permission).
1.8 The planning obligations will be specifically tied to any planning permission granted pursuant to the planning application.
1.9 Other standard provisions will be included in the S106 Agreement, including (but not limited to) provisions relating to release from obligations in the event of the disposal of interests, consequences on the lapsing, revocation or modification of the planning permission and exclusion of third party rights to enforce, etc.
2. Affordable Housing Provision
2.1 30% of the dwellings to be constructed on the site shall be Affordable Housing.
2.2 An Affordable Housing Scheme will identify those dwellings within the development which are to be made affordable and the tenure of those dwellings.
2.3 Not more than 50% of the Market Dwellings shall be occupied until the Affordable Housing Units have been offered to an Affordable Housing Provider in accordance with the relevant Affordable Housing Scheme.
2.4 Not more than 85% of the Market Dwellings shall be occupied before 100% of the Affordable Housing Units have been Practically Completed.
2.5 The Affordable Housing Units can only be used as Affordable Housing in accordance with the Priority Order (i.e. a cascade of 8 categories of persons in housing need) which is to reflect the “Qualifying Persons” criteria, which will be defined in writing by the Ribble Valley Borough Council.
2.6 The Affordable Dwellings will also be subject to usual restrictions guarding their affordability in perpetuity, subject to exceptions e.g. mortgagees in possession etc.
2.7 A fallback mechanism will address the circumstances in which, despite reasonable endeavours having been used by the Owners, the Affordable Dwellings have not been purchased by an Affordable Housing Provider. In those circumstances the Affordable Dwellings would (subject to the Council’s prior approval and certain pre-conditions being satisfied) be sold on the open market free of restrictions.
3. Education Contribution
3.1 The Education Contribution is provisionally [£XX] but this is subject to:
a) The total number of eligible dwellings and pupil yield within the development being finalised and;
b) The precise figure being calculated in accordance with the methodology set out in the Planning Obligations for Lancashire Policy Paper (2014)
3.2 The Primary School Education Contribution will be payable in phases to be agreed.
4. Sustainable Transport
4.1 A contribution towards sustainable transport measures of [£X] will be made in to Lancashire County Council, as Highway Authority, towards the provision of measures to support sustainable transport.
5. Open Space
5.1 The illustrative masterplan for the land at Dilworth Lane includes sufficient provision of on-site open space, equipped play space, informal recreation areas and a community orchard.
5.2 A written scheme setting out the proposals for the public open space (including provision, management and maintenance) shall be submitted to the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development (save where such matters will be dealt with adequately by a condition or conditions attached to the planning permission or subsequent reserved matters approval).
6. Covenants by the Council and the County Council
6.1 Standard ‘clawback’ provision which requires the return of any unspent part of the contributions plus interest if the contribution is not spent 5 years after the date of payment. Other obligations may be imposed upon the Councils in order to reflect the above requirements and provide the Owner with appropriate protection.
Turley 1 New York Street Manchester M1 4HD T 0161 233 7676
Appendix 7: Inspectors Letter (Nov 2012)
CORE STRATEGY EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC
please ask for: Michelle Haworth Inspector: Simon Berkeley BA MA MRTPI direct line: 07896 064236 Programme Officer: Michelle Haworth e-mail: [email protected] our ref: Examination Office Ribble Valley Borough Council your ref: Council Offices date: 23 November 2012 Church Walk respondent ID: Clitheroe BB7 2RA
Dear Mr Hirst
Examination of the Ribble Valley Core Strategy
Thank you for your response of 29 October to my earlier letter. I welcome the positive approach you have taken in addressing some of the issues I have previously raised.
However, you will appreciate that my aim is to avoid the considerable effort and expense to the Council and others of progressing the examination to public hearings unless the Core Strategy stands a reasonable chance of being found sound. Unfortunately, I still have significant concerns in this regard.
A number of the concerns I set out previously remain, in whole or in part. It may be possible that main modifications could be made to the plan to adequately address these. That being said, I have fundamental concerns in relation to the evidence base. This letter focuses on those because the evidence base is the foundation of the plan and its soundness is dependant on it.
Housing evidence It is imperative that the evidence base robustly identifies the borough’s housing needs, demonstrates that there is an adequate supply of deliverable/developable land to meet those needs, and that the Core Strategy’s policies do not render the development needed unviable. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) are crucial underpinning documents in this regard.
The SHMA The SHMA dates from December 2008. Given the passage of time since its baseline information was gathered, I am concerned that it is out of date. The Housing Requirement Report by NLP, dated July 2011, is helpful in that it establishes a more up to date level of overall need for housing. However, it does not set out to quantify the need for affordable housing in the borough, or the mix of housing types and range of tenures required.
You point to the Council’s Addressing Housing Need in Ribble Valley document, dated June 2011, and the Pennine Lancashire Housing Strategy 2009 – 2029 Refresh of 2011. I agree that both help to set the scene and provide useful background and contextual information. But neither seeks to quantifiably estimate the mix of housing
1 of 4 and range of tenures that Ribble Valley’s population is likely to need over the plan period. In short, they do not fill the gap in the evidence.
I note that Key Statement H2 directly refers to the SHMA. It requires applications to demonstrate that the mix of housing proposed accords with the projected future household requirements and local need across the borough as a whole as evidenced by the SHMA. The effectiveness of this approach rests on the currency of the SHMA, and amounts to a further reason for updating it.
The SHLAA The SHLAA is dated November 2009. As I noted previously, in identifying sites, the methodology includes sites: identified by officers in the settlement audit (Oct 2006); promoted by developers/landowners as part of LDF process (Feb 2007); put forward through a call for sites (March 2008); refused planning permission in the last 3 years (which I take to mean 2007 – 2009 inclusive) on grounds of prematurity; and those put forward from discussions with Development Control officers.
Given the passage of time since this information was collated, the circumstances of some sites may have changed. Therefore it is not possible to conclude with the necessary degree of certainty that the sites identified in the SHLAA remain deliverable/developable in the terms set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
As I also previously noted, while the SHLAA does consider economic viability, there are a number of shortcomings in this regard. It uses information about house prices and build costs in October/November 2008. The reliability of this is now highly questionable. More fundamentally, though, the viability of providing affordable housing is tested using a site threshold of 15 dwellings rather than the 10 and 5 dwelling thresholds proposed in Key Statement H3 of the Core Strategy. Whether the 30% affordable housing level sought by Key Statement H3 was that applied is also not clear. In addition, so far as I can see, the Housing Requirement Report by NLP does not test the viability of the affordable housing requirements of Key Statement H3.
I note that the Council has, in effect, been applying the requirements of Key Statement H3 since July 2009 in determining planning applications. However, this does not amount in itself to compelling evidence to demonstrate that the proposed thresholds and level of affordable housing is viable over the plan period. The acknowledged persistent under-delivery of housing generally lends little reassurance in this regard.
In response to point 38 of my earlier note, you suggest that as sites are not being allocated at this stage, the policy takes an approach of testing viability on a case by case basis. This rather misses the point. Key Statement H3 sets out specific thresholds and an explicit requirement in terms of the level of affordable housing to be provided. This represents positive planning of the sort envisaged by the NPPF. But to be sound, these factors must be shown to be viable. There is at present no robust evidential basis for concluding that they are.
Moreover, I must stress that the consideration of viability does not begin and end with affordable housing. Other factors are likely to have a bearing, including the need to contribute to infrastructure delivery such as open space and education, as set out in Key Statement DMI1, and to use decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy, as set out in Policy DME5. Put simply, there is no assessment of the effect of the Core Strategy’s policies, the wider ‘policy-on’ scenario, on economic viability.
You say in response to some of the points raised in my earlier letter that viability is not viewed as a general constraint in the borough, and you refer to the nature and
desirability of the area, and high market values. That may be so. But that general perception, no matter how commonly held, does not obviate the need for up to date evidence to demonstrate its validity.
The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) The GTAA was published in 2008. It is not recent. As part of the methodology surveys were undertaken, including interviews with Gypsies and Travellers. The GTAA says that this consultation is one of the most important aspects of GTAAs. But these surveys were carried out between October 2007 and February 2008. This does not amount to up to date evidence.
Economic development evidence The Employment Land and Retail Study (ELRS) reviews the supply of and demand for employment land and premises up to 2018. It appears to be a thorough analysis. But the ELRS was published in October 2008 and at least parts of the evidence it draws on dates from 2007. It is highly likely that the ELRS is now out of date.
The Employment Land Position Update of June 2011 brings the projection of the need for employment land and premises forward. However, as I understand it, this ultimately largely rests on the analysis of market demand undertaken by the ELRS. Business enquiry information is taken into account in the Update, as are the views of local agents. However, it is not entirely clear how these factors have influenced the Update’s conclusions, and it is apparent that the Update is not as robust and detailed as the ELRS in assessing market demand.
In any event, the Update relates only to the headline employment land projection. It does not seek to provide an update in relation to the retail economy. So far as I can see, the only evidence in this regard is that in the ELRS. But paragraph 10.25 of the ELRS says that it is important to bear in mind that its conclusions regarding the retail economy reflect existing market conditions as at July 2008. It warns that should these conditions change, depending on the magnitude of the current recession, conclusions and recommendations could differ significantly.
Overall Considering all of the above, the base of evidence underpinning the plan’s strategic approach to housing and economic development is not adequately up to date. In this context, I have strong doubts about placing reliance on it. I am concerned that it will not stand up to scrutiny through the examination hearings. This is a fundamental problem.
Options for the way forward Given the above, I must recommend that further work should be done to update the SHMA, SHLAA, viability evidence, GTAA and the ELRS before the examination can realistically proceed to hearings. It would not be appropriate to proceed to hearings now. I recognise that the Council will be disappointed with this, and I share your eagerness to progress. However, as things stand, the Council has a choice.
One option is to suspend the examination to allow the work I have recommended to be undertaken. It is my duty to point out that I have a number of strong misgivings about this course of action. The amount of work involved is considerable, and the evidence to which it relates is fundamental to the plan. The danger is that updating it, along with any necessary Sustainability Appraisal, would be likely to lead to substantial modifications to the Core Strategy. The result could well be a plan which is significantly different to the one originally submitted.
Even if this is not the case, it is highly likely that quite wide ranging further public consultation will be necessary. This will inevitably lead to both new and revised representations to be taken into account alongside the representations already made. All of this leads me to believe that if this examination is to proceed, it is likely that it will be protracted and lengthy. In short, it could be rather expensive for the Council.
In addition, from the revised Local Development Scheme, the Council’s staff resource gives me cause for concern. As I understand it, the principle people engaged in work on the Core Strategy are one full time Assistant Planner and a part time Project Officer, together with you as the Head of Service (a role which I anticipate involves other responsibilities). Drawing from time to time on staff in other sections will help. Nonetheless, my worry is that given the level of work involved, even with the best of endeavours, the length of the suspension needed will be considerable.
If, notwithstanding the disadvantages, the Council wishes to pursue this course and request that the examination be suspended, I am at present willing to proceed on this basis. I should say, though, that this is dependent on the likely period of abeyance required.
The other option is to withdraw the Core Strategy, and to update the evidence before bringing the plan to examination again. This course may have disadvantages in terms of perception. However, it would ultimately allow the Council to submit the plan afresh, already incorporating modifications and accompanied by up to date evidence. The clear benefit here is that there would not be the inherent complications of examining a potentially substantially modified document and heavily altered evidence base. This could prove a significantly less problematic course of action and would give the opportunity for a more efficient and streamlined examination.
I would now ask the Council to give careful consideration to the options for progressing matters and to advise me of the chosen path at the earliest opportunity. In the spirit of assistance, I am happy to answer any questions you may have in relation to procedural issues. I will do all I can to help the Council in relation to the way forward, although you will appreciate the restricted nature of my role in this regard and that any advice given is without prejudice.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Berkeley
Inspector
Appendix 8: Inspectors Letter (Jan 2014)
Examination of the Ribble Valley Core Strategy
Inspector: Simon Berkeley BA MA MRTPI
Programme Officer: Michelle Howarth Colin Hirst Examination Office Head of Regeneration and Housing Ribble Valley Borough Council Ribble Valley Borough Council Council Offices Church Walk By email only Clitheroe BB7 2RA
Tel: 0789 6064 236 [email protected]
31 January 2014
Dear Mr Hirst
Examination of the Ribble Valley Core Strategy
Further to closing the Hearing sessions last week, I have now had the opportunity to give close consideration to the evidence and points raised. I have reached the firm view that further modifications are necessary for soundness, in addition to those previously discussed.
Overall level of housing The Housing Requirement Update by NLP (‘the Update’) [Post 5.8] aims to provide the objective assessment of housing need. It considers a number of scenarios and gives an annual average dwelling requirement for each. These assessments are clearly as objective as one can realistically expect.
Section 4 of the Update discusses other factors which have a bearing. Paragraph 4.19 refers to the NPPF, which makes it clear that “every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth”. On this basis, paragraph 4.20 of the Update says “it is important that the identified level of economic growth aspired to in the emerging Ribble Valley Local Plan dovetails with the level of housing provision therein”.
In the case of this Core Strategy, I agree that housing and economic growth should ‘dovetail’. For this to genuinely occur, from the Update’s objective assessment, an annual average of 280 dwellings per annum is necessary.
Paragraph 4.22 of the Update says:
“In particular, if the Council were to pursue a figure significantly lower than 280 dpa whilst also planning for annual job growth of 100 per annum to 2028 despite an ageing population, it would need to explain how it would mitigate or avoid the adverse housing, economic and other outcomes that a lower-growth approach would give rise to. It would also need to evidence how the adverse impacts of meeting housing needs, would ‘significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’ [The Framework, para 14] as well as make provision, through the duty-to-cooperate, for those needs to be met in full elsewhere within the housing market area.”
I concur. But as I see it, 250 dwellings per annum is significantly less than 280. The significance is that it would only, as the Update’s paragraph 4.25 puts it, “meet the majority of national policy objectives … and the majority of economic needs”. To put it another way, neither the NPPF nor the economic needs of the borough would be fully met.
I note the points about ‘clawing back’ out-commuting for employment purposes, increasing economic activity in the borough and providing affordable homes for those with a connection to the Ribble Valley. However, there is little to substantiate the argument that these measures would adequately “mitigate or avoid the adverse housing, economic and other outcomes that a lower-growth approach would give rise to”. I am not persuaded that they would. In addition, in this regard I am particularly mindful of Ribble Valley’s ageing population and the implications of this for housing provision.
Furthermore, there is no clear evidential basis that “the adverse impacts of meeting housing needs would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits”. The Sustainability Appraisal Addendum Report by Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd (the SA) [Post 5.16] appraises both the 250 and 280 options. At the Hearing, Mr Hourd of Hyder Consulting confirmed that the SA indicates little difference between the two options. Indeed, from my reading of it, the SA shows that 280 dwellings per annum would have only a marginally greater impact in terms of two objectives, being protecting and enhancing landscape and townscape character and quality, and promoting the use of more sustainable modes of transport. In this context, the additional adverse impacts of planning for 280 dwellings per annum are not sufficient to justify the 250 proposed by the Council. Even if they were, it would be necessary for the shortfall to be provided elsewhere, in a neighbouring district.
Overall, it seems to me that the Council has opted for a ‘hybrid’ option which has no clear or fully objective analysis to validate it. While there must be room for pragmatism in plan making, this cannot be at the expense of meeting objectively assessed needs, particularly in relation to housing. As you are aware, the Government’s clear aim is to “boost significantly the supply of housing” (NPPF paragraph 47). In the context of this, the Core Strategy’s economic objectives and the Council’s own evidence of housing requirements, the ‘hybrid’ option falls short of meeting needs and is not a sound basis for the plan. Consequently, a main modification increasing the level of housing growth to an annual average of at least 280 is necessary for soundness.
The settlement hierarchy/spatial distribution of housing Between them, Key Statement DS1 and the table at paragraph 4.11 of the Core Strategy set out the settlement hierarchy and spatial distribution of housing. The second tier of the hierarchy includes 32 villages. With the modifications you have already put forward and from your figures, the Core Strategy indicates that 1440 new homes will be provided across these villages during the plan period. The residual figure is 732.
The problem here is twofold. Firstly, I can see little justification for grouping these villages together. They vary greatly in terms of size, the level of facilities and services they have and their accessibility. At the Hearing, it was accepted by the Council that some of these villages are clearly more sustainable than others. From all the evidence, points made at the Hearing and from my visits, I consider their sustainability credentials to be wide ranging.
Moreover, the Core Strategy leaves one guessing about how the 732 homes apportioned to this tier might be distributed among the villages. I note the Council’s
2 point that this will be resolved through the forthcoming land allocations document. But it is the role of the Core Strategy to tackle strategic spatial issues of this kind. At present, the Core Strategy is insufficiently clear for local residents, Council officers drawing up the land allocations document and those seeking to bring developments forward. In short, it is not adequately effective in this regard.
To address all this, a main modification is necessary. This should include a more refined differentiation between the villages in the second tier on the basis of their sustainability, capacity to accept growth and any other pertinent factors. It should also identify the level of new housing anticipated in a more finely grained manner. Allocating specific figures to each of the individual villages would be the ideal situation. However, it might be that you can conceive of other justifiable and effective solutions. Much may depend on the modified hierarchy and how you propose to single out or group the villages. Given this, for the time being at least, I keep an open mind about the precise level of detail needed.
Finally, I do not consider that the re-allocation of 200 homes through the ‘Longridge adjustment’ to the second tier villages is justified. Taking account of their varying sustainability credentials, I am of the firm view that this figure should be re- distributed amongst the more sustainable settlements. The most obvious options to consider are the principal settlements and the most sustainable of the villages presently in the second tier. It is necessary for soundness to modify the plan in this respect.
The way forward I now ask that you consider the content of this letter. While I recognise you will be disappointed, you will also understand that I can only support the plan if I am satisfied that it is sound. Unfortunately, as it stands at present, I am not persuaded that it is sound in the above respects. I should say that this is not to imply any guarantee that no other modifications will be needed. Naturally, I reserve my position in this regard until the examination process is complete.
I appreciate that the points I have raised here may well lead to the need for additional work to be undertaken. With this is mind, I ask that you draw up an outline of the main tasks associated with addressing the points raised in this letter along with the additional work arising from the discussions at the Hearings, including the timescales involved with each. This is to assist me, the Council and all other interested parties in the likely timing of consultation on the modifications proposed to the plan. I would be grateful to receive this document at the earliest opportunity.
In the spirit of assistance, I am happy to answer any questions you may have in relation to procedural issues. I will do all I can to help the Council in relation to the way forward, although you will appreciate the restricted nature of my role in this regard and that any advice given is without prejudice.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Berkeley
Inspector
3
Appendix 9: Planning Committee Report May 2014
Appendix 1
Ribble Valley Borough Council
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
Defining the more sustainable settlements and patterns of housing development
April 2014
1
1. Introduction
This report has been prepared in response to matters arising during the Examination in Public (EiP) of the Ribble Valley Borough Council Core Strategy. The hearing sessions of the EiP were held 14-22 January 2014.
Following the hearing sessions, the appointed Inspector wrote to the Council 1 advising that he could see little justification for grouping the 32 defined settlements as one. He stated that these settlements vary greatly in terms of size, the level of facilities and services they have and their accessibility and considers the sustainability credentials of these settlements to be wide ranging.
The Inspector also stated that the submission version of the Core Strategy lacks clarity in terms of how the residual number of homes will be apportioned and distributed among the 32 defined settlements. The Inspector noted the Council’s intent to resolve this issue through the forthcoming allocations document (the Housing and Economic Development DPD) but considered that the Core Strategy should address this issue by making a main modification to the document. This paper represents this modification and, in line with the Inspector’s advice, provides a more refined differentiation between the 32 defined settlements based upon their sustainability, capacity to accept growth and other pertinent factors set out in this report including existing planning commitments. As advised, the level of new housing anticipated is set out, with specific housing targets or a policy approach of development for local needs or regeneration benefits set out for each of the 32 defined settlements.
The overall housing requirement, as set out in this report, is 5,600 units over the plan period (a minimum of 280 units per year on average) as advised by the Inspector following the close of the EiP hearing sessions.
2. The current position
The submitted Core Strategy sets out the proposed development strategy at Key Statement DS1. This sets out that the majority of new housing development will be concentrated within an identified strategic site located to the south of Clitheroe towards the A59 and the principle settlements of Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley.
In addition to the identified strategic site at Standen and the borough’s principal settlements, development will be allocated to the defined settlements listed in this policy. In general, the scale of planned housing growth will be managed to reflect existing population size, the availability of, or the opportunity to provide facilities to service the development and the extent to which development can be accommodated within the local area.
The defined settlements are:
1 Letter from Mr Simon Berkeley to Colin Hirst at RVBC, dated 31 st January 2014.
2
In allocating development, the Council will have regard to the AONB, Green Belt and similar designations when establishing the scale, extent and form of development to be allocated under this policy. The relevant constraints are set out as part of the strategic framework included in this plan.
Development that has recognised regeneration benefits, is for identified local needs or satisfies neighbourhood planning legislation, will be considered in all the borough’s settlements, including small-scale development in the smaller settlements that are appropriate for consolidation and expansion or rounding- off of the built up area.
Through this strategy, development opportunities will be created for economic, social and environmental well-being and development for future generations.
Within appendix 2 of the Core Strategy, a numerical breakdown of the residual residential development is provided to illustrate potential distribution. Based on an average annual housing requirement of 280 units per annum (5,600 over the whole plan period) the residual number of houses required for each main settlements based on main settlement population is set out below. This utilises the most up to date monitoring information (31 st March 2014).
Settlement 1 2 3 4 5 7 No of No of houses already Unadjusted Longridge Proposed Residual houses to completed/permissions residual Adjustment 4 Strategic number of be given 3 for each settlement (less no site 5 houses provided 2 area (based on the Parish) already required for completed/ each permission settlement 6 given) Clitheroe 2,320 1040 1280 1040 240 Longridge 1,160 327 833 633 633 Whalley 520 588 0 (-68) 0 Non-defined 0 432 0 (-432) settlements/areas (8 settlements) 7 Other ‘Defined 1,600 1223 377 Settlements’ (32 settlements) 1,600 1655 -55 145 145 Standen 1040 Total 5,600 3610 2058 1040 2058
2 For the 3 main settlements, total number of dwellings is 4000. Number of houses is calculated from settlement population as a % of total main settlement population – Clitheroe 58%, Longridge 29% and Whalley 13%. 3 Does not include sites that are awaiting completion of section 106 agreements at 31 st March 2014. 4 This allowance reflects development allowed at appeal of 200 units in Preston Borough at Whittingham Lane- 200 units are therefore reapportioned to the most sustainable settlements within the defined settlements. 5 Proposed strategic site – 1040 dwellings proposed at Standen. 1040 taken from Clitheroe requirement. 6 As at 31 st March 2014 – applications have been approved since. 7 Whilst there are 40 villages in the Ribble Valley, only 32 of these are categorised as ‘defined settlements’- these are the settlements where development is to be allocated. Whilst some development has taken place outside of these settlements (in the remaining 8 villages), the Core Strategy Development Strategy, once adopted, should prevent further development taking place in these locations.
3
Aims of this discussion paper This report aims to address the concerns raised by the Inspector by providing a more refined settlement strategy that focuses development to the more sustainable settlements and illustrating how this could be apportioned. It also explores how the sustainability attributes of the settlements will be assessed as well as the potential constraints and the capacity for further growth. In addition, the location of the settlements in relation to the transport corridors will be assessed as this is considered to be a sustainable approach to locating further development.
3. What information has been collected?
To achieve the report aims, information has been collated on facilities and services within the settlements, constraints affecting the settlements and the capacity of the settlements to grow.
Facilities and services: The information collated on this relates to the number of services within each settlement, the accessibility by bus to a key service centre (not only those within the borough but those in surrounding boroughs too), the number of bus services operating within each settlement and the number of bus services which will get residents to employment before 9am and able to return home after 5pm.
Constraints: This looked at whether settlements were within, partly within, adjacent or outside of the AONB, Greenbelt or Flood Zone 3. In addition, the mean house price to income ratio was considered to provide a context with regard to aligning new development in locations where affordability could be achieved.
Capacity for Growth : The capacity for growth information was taken from the recent SHLAA update (2013) as an initial indicator and is set out on table 6 (page 18) of this paper. It shows the following in relation to the sites that are included in the SHLAA. Although only the sites that are within or are closely related to the settlement boundary are used in table 11, the adopted SHLAA illustrates that there are sufficient sites within the Parish boundaries of these settlements to meet the proposed requirements set out in chapter 7, with the exception of Chatburn and Mellor, however the shortfall is not considered significant given the timeframe of the plan.
The tables setting out this information are provided below. The accessibility related charts are principally derived from analysis of current bus and rail timetables available in February 2014. The local highway authority (Lancashire County Council) were contacted regarding the possibility of a more in depth analysis of local settlements’ accessibility through computer software modelling (for instance using the Accession software tool) but currently this is not available and new software will not be available in the short term.
As the tables below demonstrate, in broad terms most of the 32 settlements have regular public transport links at least to their nearest Key Service Centre (KSC) of either Clitheroe, Whalley or Longridge, particularly Clitheroe. 17 settlements have public transport that would allow access to employment within their nearest KSC, 26 settlements have public transport options to allow at least shopping and other daytime related visits both to the KSCs and in many cases to surrounding centres in other Boroughs. In many cases public transport also allows theoretical employment related journeys outside the Borough with 14 settlements having bus links to one or more of the surrounding centres of Blackburn, Burnley, Preston, Skipton and Nelson. Only 6 settlements have no public transport connection.
4
It should also be borne in mind that there are also connections available for employment, education, shopping and entertainment related journeys through buses connecting to the area’s four railway stations, which allow access to the Greater Manchester conurbation and directly to Manchester city centre, and also to Preston for access to the West Coast mainline.
The information used within the constraints table (in relation to the AONB and Green Belt) uses information from the 1998 District Wide Local Plan Proposals Map and Map Zone (a county based GIS system) as these boundaries are considered to have been largely unchanged since that time. The location of settlements in relation to Flood Zone 3 has been drawn from the Lancashire County Council Map Zone overlay service, which has the zone mapped from January 2014.
5
4. Analysis
The following section sets out the data that has been brought together for analysis. From this, an assessment of sustainability has been made. The information is presented in tables for clarity and is followed by a spreadsheet with brings this information together. By presenting the information in this way, it has been possible to compare the facilities and services, constraints and capacity for growth of each of the settlements, allowing for judgements to be made on which of the settlements are the more sustainable.
Table 1 shows the facilities and other services and are drawn from a combination of the County Council Map Zone facility mentioned above, with information dating from October 2011 to February 2014, and current internet sources as of February 2014.
In addition, information has been obtained from local Parish Council’s and Borough Councillors to ensure that the information contained in this paper is accurate and up to date. Letters were sent to all Parish Clerks requesting information on the services and facilities in the 32 defined other settlements. This letter produced a good response.
6
Table 1. Facilities and Services (non-Transport related)
GP Dentist Pharmacy Post Village Convenience Public Library Nursery Primary Secondary Further/Higher Office Hall/ Store House School Education See note See note See note Cy See note See note School 10 4 9 See note centre See note 7 6 1 5 See note and Note 11 3 Barrow (co-op garage) Billington Bolton – by - Bowland
Brockhall Calderstones
Chatburn (PO) Chipping Copster Green Downham * *(PO) Dunsop (PO) Bridge Gisburn (PO) * Grindleton See Note 8 Holden
Hurst Green (part time in house) Langho Mellor (PO) Mellor Brook
Newton Osbaldeston
Pendleton Read and Simonstone
Ribchester Rimington * Sabden
Sawley See Note 8 Slaidburn Tosside Waddington (PO)
West Bradford Wilpshire Wiswell Worston
7 * = closed at present
Table 1 Notes Note 1: There are also primary schools at Balderstone and on road between Longridge and Grimsargh do not appear in chart above as they are not sited within one of the above 32 settlements. Note 2: F/HE facility on road between Longridge and Grimsargh Note 3: Village Halls also at Whitewell, Bashall, West of Holden, Knowle Green and Hesketh Lane. Note also that this category does not show Church Halls . Note 4: All dentists in the Borough are in the three Key Service Centres of Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley. Note 5: There is also a Post Office at Bashall. Note 6: There are also 7 nurseries in the three Key Service Centres . Note 7: Some Post Offices also serve as village convenience stores and are also included as such in the stores category as they also serve that as a separate function. Some convenience stores are also locate within the petrol station Note 8 : Bowland High School provides Secondary education in the Borough but does not lie within a settlement. It lies between Grindleton and Sawley and has been attributed to both Grindleton and Sawley for the purposes of this study. Note 9: There are also pharmacies in Longridge, Whalley and Clitheroe Note 10: There are also GP facilities in Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley Note 11: The settlement of Mellor Brook straddles the boundaries of Ribble Valley Borough and South Ribble District Councils and the parishes of Mellor, Balderstone and Samlesbury. There is a petrol station with an attached convenience store and also a public house within that part of the settlement within South Ribble and these facilities have been included in the Table as they are integral to the built form of the settlement. The settlement also contains a community centre within that part of the settlement that lies in Balderstone parish.
8
Table 2 – AONB, Green Belt and Flood Zone
Inside or Inside or Within Flood Zone 3 partly partly inside No entry = not inside inside Green belt AONB No entry = not No entry = not inside or partly inside or partly inside inside Barrow Billington S s/b adj Small part on N boundary within Bolton – by -B Totally Within, along Kirk Beck and from Kirk within Beck Bridge to Skirden Bridge Brockhall uncertain boundary Calderstones Within on part of S boundary Chatburn E s/b close to Partly within, along Chatburn Brook but not adj Chipping Totally within Within along Chipping Brook on SE part Copster Green Downham Totally SE part along Downham Beck within Dunsop Bridge Totally within Centre of settlement within FZ3 Gisburn w. s/b adj to AONB Grindleton 90% within Partly within on S boundary Holden Totally within Within along Holden Beck Hurst Green c. 90% Not in but FZ adj to E boundary within Langho N,W and E s/b adj Mellor N,W and E s/b adj Mellor Brook E s/b adj Newton Totally within Osbaldeston Pendleton Partly within Read and Simonstone S s/bd adj Ribchester Partly within FZ along N and E boundaries Rimington Sabden Totally within Within, along two E to W flowing brooks Sawley Totally within Partly within along river to W Slaidburn Totally within Partly within along Hodder and brook Tosside Totally within Waddington Partly within Partly within FZ through centre of settlement along brook West Bradford Partly within Partly within along SE part Wilpshire 95% of s/b adj to Blackburn boundary Wiswell Worston NE s/b v close to AONB
Notes:
S/b = settlement boundary within 1998 Ribble Valley District wide Local Plan
9
Table 3 – Detailed Transport Related Provision
Bus Rail Bus Detail of bus provision Stop Station Route
Barrow 26/27 26/27 (mainline) Burnley – Clitheroe via Whalley service stops at Barrow in both directions on a roughly 30 minute or hourly pattern from Clitheroe from 0640 to 2312 and from Burnley from 0601 to 2213. Billington 22 25 runs through Billington following same pattern as Langho, Copster Green and Wilpshire Bolton - by -B NO SERVICE Brockhall 25 25 connects to Blackburn every two hours from 0855 to 1902 . Return from Blackburn every two hours 0935 to 1815 . This also goes in to Clitheroe via Whalley from 1009 to 1849 returning from Clitheroe 1227 to 1837. Calderstones 5 and 5 and 5A serves Calderstones on same pattern as Chipping, Hurst 5A Green and Ribchester . Ie to Clitheroe Chatburn 180 Combination of 180, 280 and X80 runs approx. hourly Mon – Fri to and 280 from Clitheroe, Whalley, Skipton and Preston . Out from Chatburn X80 c.0640 to 1815 to Clitheroe , Whalley and Preston and back from Preston from c.0830 to 1910. To Skipton from 0816 to 1818 and back from Skipton from 0910 to 1900 c. hourly.
14 14 and 14A also connects to Accrington and Blackburn via Clitheroe, 14A Whalley every two hours from 0929 to 1629 and return from Blackburn arr Chatburn every two hours from 0928 to 1628.
2 2 connects to Clitheroe Mon – Sat hourly from 0810 to 1825 . Back from Clitheroe hourly from 0734 to 1755.
7B 7 and 7B go to Clitheroe initially every 30 mins in the morning then 7 hourly after 0919 from 0634 to 1908. Returns from Clitheroe hourly from 0720 to 1847. These services then go onto Nelson. Returns from Nelson are hourly from 0720 to 1815. Chipping 5 5 connects every 2 hours to Clitheroe via Longridge from 0833 to 1908. returns every two hours from Clitheroe via Longridge from 0934 to 1809. 35 35 connects to Blackburn via Longridge every two hours Mon to Sat from 0728 to 2348. Returns from Blackburn every two hours from 0705 to 2300.
Copster Green 25 25 connects to Blackburn every two hours from 0904 to 1911. Return from Blackburn every two hours 0935 to 1815. This also goes in to Clitheroe via Whalley from 1000 to 1840 returning from Clitheroe 1227 to 1837. Downham 7 7 and 7A run to Clitheroe Mon – Sat every hour from 0800 to 1854 7A returning 7B from Clitheroe every hour from 0720 to 1825. The Clitheroe services run on to Nelson hourly and return from Nelson hourly from 0720 to 1815.
Dunsop Bridge 10 Weekday connection to Clitheroe. From D Bridge 0957 hourly to 1617. From Clitheroe 0925 to 1545 Gisburn 180 Combination of 180, 280 and X80 runs hourly Mon – Fri to and from 280 Clitheroe, Whalley and Preston . Out from Gisburn c.0630 to 1807 X80 and back from Preston from c.0830 to 1910.
Also same services run to and from Skipton hourly, out to Skipton from c 0800 to c. 1800 and back from c 0900 to 1900 Grindleton 2 2 connects to Clitheroe Mon – Sat hourly from 0803 to 1818 . Back from Clitheroe hourly from 0734 to 1755.
7B 7B runs to Clitheroe every 30 mins from 0634 to 0730, then at 0839 and 1903. Returns from Clitheroe approx 30 mins 1625 to 1825 then three additional from 1842 to 2242 on Thurs to Sats. Holden NO SERVICE Hurst Green 5 5 connects every 2 hours to Clitheroe from 0805 to 2208. Returns every two hours from Clitheroe from 0934 to 1809 with two later returns Thur to Sat
10
Table 3 - Transport Related (Cont’d)
Langho 22 22/22A runs twice hourly Mon – Sat to and from Clitheroe, Whalley and 22A Blackburn from c 0600 to c. 2300.
180 Also combination of 180, 280 and X80 runs hourly to Whalley, Clitheroe and 280 Preston Mon - Sat from c 0700 to c 1900 in Preston. To Clitheroe from 0755 to X80 1936 and back from Clitheroe from 0652 to 1826.
25 25 connects to Blackburn every two hours from to 0851 to 1858. Return from Blackburn every two hours 0935 to 1815. This also goes in to Clitheroe via Whalley from 1013 to 1853 returning from Clitheroe 1227 to 1837. Mellor 15 15 runs to Blackburn every hour from 0703 to 1814 and returns hourly from Blackburn at 0630 to 1745
217 217 runs to Preston return one bus per day Wed and Fri out at 0959 returning from Preston 1345 Mellor 180 Combination of 180, 280 and X80 runs approx. hourly Mon – Fri to and from Brook 280 Clitheroe, Whalley and Preston . Out from Mellor B to Preston from 0718 to X80 1853 and back from Preston from c.0830 to 1910. To Whalley and Clitheroe from 0759 to 1927 and back from Clitheroe from 0649 to 1822 approx hourly.
15 runs to Blackburn every hour Mon to Sat from 0656 to 1814 and returns from 15 Blackburn from 0630 to 1745.
217 runs to Preston return one bus per day Wed and Fri out at 0946 returning 217 from Preston 1345. Newton 10 Weekday connection to Clitheroe. From Newton 1015 to 1635 hourly. From Clitheroe 0925 to 1545. Osbaldeston 217 217 runs to Preston return one bus per day Wed and Fri out at 0956 returning from Preston 1345. Pendleton NO SERVICE Read and 26 26 runs on same pattern as Sabden, hourly Mon to Sat to Clitheroe, Whalley Simonstone and Burnley. Ribchester 5 5 connects every 2 hours to Clitheroe from 0755 to 1930 Returns every two hours from Clitheroe from 0934 to 1809 then on to Longridge . Two hourly from Longridge from 0747 to 1922 .
35 35 connects to Blackburn every two hours Mon to Sat from 0750 to 0010 and returns from Blackburn every two hours from 0705 to 2300. Rimington 7A 7A runs to Clitheroe every two hours from 0901 to 1501 and returns from Clitheroe every two hours from 1025 to 1425 then running on to Nelson . returns from Nelson are every two hours from 0830 to 1430. Sabden 27 27 runs hourly Mon to Sat from c. 0640 to 2013 to Clitheroe and Whalley. Also connects hourly to and from Burnley Sawley 2 2 connects to Clitheroe Mon – Sat hourly from Sawley from c 0800 to 1813. Back from Clitheroe hourly from c 0740 to 1755 Slaidburn 10 Weekday connection to Clitheroe. From Slaidburn 1010 to 1630 hourly. From Clitheroe 0925 to 1545. Tosside NO SERVICE Waddington 10 Weekday connection to Clitheroe. From Waddington 1023 to 1643 hourly. From Clitheroe 0925 to 1545.
7 Services to Clitheroe mostly every 30 mins or hourly from 0648 to 1912, returning 7A from Clitheroe with same frequency from 0720 to 1825 with two later services 7B Thurs to Sats. Services to Clitheroe also go on to Nelson and return from Nelson hourly from 0720 to 1815. West 7 Initially 30 mins then hourly to Clitheroe from 0634 to 1908. returns from Bradford 7A Clitheroe hourly or more frequently from 0720 to 1825 with two later services on 7B Thursto Sats. Services from Clitheroe go on to Nelson and return from Nelson hourly from 0720 to 1815. Wilpshire 25 25 connects to Blackburn every two hours from 0912 to 1919. Return from Blackburn every two hours 0935 to 1815 . This also goes in to Clitheroe via Whalley from 0951 to 1831 returning from Clitheroe 1227 to 1837.
35 35 connects to Blackburn every two hours Mon to Sat from 0805 to 0022 and returns from Blackburn every two hours from 0705 to 2300. Wiswell NO SERVICE Worston NO SERVICE
11
Table 4 – Presence of a Bus Service and Railway Station.
Clitheroe Longridge Whalley Black Burnl Preston Nelso Accringt Ski Rail burn ey n on pto Servic n e Barrow Billington Bolton – by - N/S B Brockhall Calderstones Chatburn Chipping Copster Green Downham Dunsop Bridge Gisburn Grindleton Holden N/S
Hurst Green Langho Rail Sta. Mellor Mellor Brook Newton Osbaldeston Pendleton N/S
Read and Simonstone Ribchester Rimington Sabden Sawley Slaidburn Tosside N/S
Waddington West Bradford Wilpshire Rail Sta. Wiswell N/S
Worston N/S
Notes re Table 4 :
Note 1 - this table only shows the presence of a bus connection, not the frequency of the service . Note 2 – table shows direct bus service links only, others may be available through changes on to other bus services, particularly at Clitheroe, Whalley and Longridge, or to rail services at Langho, Clitheroe, Whalley or Wilpshire. Note 3: N/S indicates that there is no bus service, though there may be a bus stop indicated on some data sources
12
Employment and Shopping and Health Destinations Other daytime related daytime visits related visits only Barrow Clitheroe, Whalley, Burnley. Billington Clitheroe, Whalley, Blackburn. Bolton by -B N/S Brockhall Clitheroe, Whalley Calderstones Clitheroe Chatburn Clitheroe, Whalley, Skipton, Preston, (shopping and non employment visits also possible to Accrington and Blackburn) Chipping Longridge, Blackburn. Copster Green Clitheroe, Whalley, Blackburn. Downham Clitheroe, Nelson. Dunsop Bridge Clitheroe Gisburn Clitheroe, Whalley, Preston, Skipton. Grindleton Clitheroe Holden N/S Hurst Green Clitheroe Langho * Clitheroe, Whalley, Blackburn, Preston. Mellor Blackburn Mellor Brook Clitheroe, Whalley and Preston. Newton Clitheroe Osbaldeston Preston (wed and fri only). Pendleton N/S Read and Clitheroe, Whalley, Burnley. Simonstone Ribchester Clitheroe, Whalley, Blackburn. Rimington Clitheroe, Nelson. Sabden Clitheroe, Whalley, Burnley. Sawley Clitheroe Slaidburn Clitheroe Tosside N/S Waddington Clitheroe West Bradford Clitheroe Wilpshire * Blackburn Wiswell N/S Worston N/S
Table 5 – Accessibility by Public Transport for Employment and Shopping etc .
N/S = No Service
Notes re Table 5:
Note 1: All journeys mentioned are direct, other destinations are potentially accessible through connections, principally at Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley. An example would be to access Clitheroe from Mellor by walking to Mellor Brook and then taking a bus from there . Note 2: Employment accessibility is assumed if it is possible to access the destination by direct bus to arrive by 0900 and to return home direct after 170 0.
13
Note 3: Further connections to centres such as Blackburn, Preston, Bolton and Manchester Victoria are available via buses to the rail stations at Clitheroe, Whalley, Langho and Wilpshire.(latter two marked with an *)
Rail Connectivity in Ribble Valley
The four Ribble Valley stations of Clitheroe, Whalley, Langho and Ramsgreave/Wilpshire have regular connections to the wider rail system through services towards Blackburn.
In detail the area’s stations have direct services Monday to Friday to Manchester Victoria every 30 minutes from 0640 to 0740 (from Clitheroe), all of which arrive in Manchester before 0900. After that there is a roughly hourly service from 0826 to 2240. To access Manchester Piccadilly there is a 5 to 10 minute change at Bolton.
Returning from Manchester Victoria there are initially 30 minute services from 0723 to 0900 then hourly from 0900 to 1623, then on a thirty minute pattern from 1623 to 1900, then hourly to 2200.
Also there are roughly hourly services on Saturdays and Sundays both to and from the area from 0707 to 2246 connecting with Manchester Victoria
Services to Preston, and from there connections on the West Coast Mainline, are available with a roughly 10 minute change at Blackburn.
The above links would enable connections for work, education (such as the universities and colleges in Preston, Bolton, Salford and Manchester), shopping and entertainment.
Demand Responsive Transport options
In addition to the formally scheduled public transport options outlined above there is a demand responsive option in the area, the Little Green Bus (LGB) service. This offers a door to door service for passengers who have difficulty in accessing regular public transport and operates around the towns and villages of the area. The service also co ordinates a volunteer car scheme and also there are day trips organised for a variety of purposes including shopping. The LGB currently provides approx 27,000 single passenger trips per year with main pick up points at Waddington, Clitheroe, Hurst Green, Ribchester and Longridge on Mondays; Sabden, Wilpshire, and Langho on Tuesdays; Chipping, Downham, Rimington, Bolton by Bowland on Tuesdays and Billington, Read and Mellor on Thursdays. However the service will pick up anywhere where there is a need.
14
Numbers of Businesses within Defined Settlements
No of Comments Businesses Barrow 22 Billington 3 Bolton – by - 5 B Brockhall 3 Calderstones 0 Chatburn 6 Does not include Pendle Trading Estate Chipping 7 Copster 1 Green Downham 2 Dunsop 6 Bridge Gisburn 17 Grindleton 2 Holden 1 Hurst Green 4 Langho 8 Mellor 4 Mellor Brook 5 Does not include BAe site Newton 1 Osbaldeston 1 Pendleton 1 Read and 14 Does not include Time Computer site or Fort Simonstone Vale site Ribchester 24 Rimington 5 Sabden 9 Sawley 1 Slaidburn 9 Tosside 1 Waddington 4 West 1 Bradford Wilpshire 24 Wiswell 1 Worston 0
Notes:
The above table describes the approximate number of commercial businesses that are thought to be located within the boundaries of the defined settlements but not those that exist in the countryside around them, including farm based enterprises. They are drawn from recently produced parish based business rate data. They include businesses such as shops, pubs and post offices mentioned elsewhere in other tables as local facilities but also include other businesses classed as workshops, warehouses, factories, petrol stations, depots, hotels, holiday cottages, restaurants, hairdressers and garages. They do not include other categories of
15
activities that are also liable for business rates but are not considered to be strictly part of the economic life of the settlements. These include mobile phone masts, schools, car parks, social and sporting clubs, village halls, sewage works, doctor’s surgeries and recycling centres.
Also the figures count numbers of businesses, not the numbers of employees, or turnover or other related measures.
It is also important to consider that they as strictly as possible relate to the settlement boundaries and therefore some businesses that local people may consider to be a part of a settlement will not be counted because they are close to, but not actually within, the defined area.
It is also important to emphasise that the settlements listed above do not include the three key service centres of the Borough, Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley, where many businesses are located, or the major employment sites at BAe near Samlesbury, the Time Computers and Fort Vale sites near but not within Simonstone, or Pendle Trading Estate near Chatburn.
There are no recorded business rates liabilities in Calderstones and Worston settlements.
16
5. What does the information show?
The collated data (as set out in table 6) provides information on the sustainability of the defined settlements. This makes it possible to assess which of the 32 settlements are more sustainable.
The findings have been derived from an analysis of the most up to date sustainability, constraint and capacity information available. The analysis is based on the most recent information available. It is broad brush given the timeframe available but is a helpful starting point. The assessment work undertaken is robust and transparent and sufficient in identifying which settlements are the more sustainable.
The approach taken allows a comparison of the relative sustainability merits of the settlements can be undertaken, using the criteria defined in this report. That is those settlements with the most facilities and services, fewest constraints and best accessibility are determined as more sustainable. These are then considered in light of the capacity for future growth (i.e. is there sufficient land available for further growth) and the location of the settlements in terms of transport corridors. From this nine settlements emerge which are considered the ‘more sustainable’ in line with the Inspector’s comments.
The 9 ‘more sustainable’ settlements, in this context, are as follows (in alphabetical order): • Barrow • Billington • Chatburn • Gisburn • Langho • Mellor • Mellor Brook • Read and Simonstone • Wilpshire
These settlements are considered to be the most sustainable, accessible and least constrained when viewed as a whole. As discussed, these are considered to have strong transport connections and are located on, or close to significant transport corridors.
The remaining 23 settlements are categorised in this context as being ‘less sustainable’. These are as follows (in alphabetical order):
• Bolton-by-Bowland • Pendleton • Brockhall • Ribchester • Calderstones • Rimington • Chipping • Sabden • Copster Green • Sawley • Grindleton • Slaidburn • Holden • Tosside • Hurst Green • Waddington • Downham • West Bradford • Dunsop Bridge • Wiswell • Newton • Worston • Osbaldeston
17 Table 6: Potential groupings of settlements
Facilities & Services Constraints Capacity for Growth Accessibility by bus to Businesses within No of services in Access to employment In, out or adj to constraint Dwellings in each ward Potential groupings KSCs the defined House price: Income Ratio SHLAA Capacity settlement by bus areas 2011 Census (7 in total) accessible settlements Mellor 7 Chatburn 6 Chatburn 4 Wilpshire 24 Barrow (nwoa) Waddington & West Bradford 8.4 Langho 909 Aighton, Bailey and Chaigley 565 Langho 7 Gisburn 5 Gisburn 4 Ribchester 24 Brockhall (nwoa) Aighton, Bailey & Chaigley 7.7 Read & Simonstone 789 Alston and Hothersall 1077 Barrow 22 More Sustainable defined Sabden 7 Langho 4 + rail station Langho 4 Copster Green (nwoa) Bowland, Newton & Slaidburn 7.4 Barrow 765 Billington and Old Langho 1282 settlements Chatburn 6 Mellor Brook 4 Barrow 3 Gisburn 17 Osbaldeston (nwoa) Ribchester 6.7 Gisburn 274 Bowland, Newton and Slaidburn 577 Barrow Read & Simonstone 14 Chipping 6 Barrow 3 Billington 3 Rimington (nwoa) Chipping 6.7 Grindleton 181 Chatburn 584 Langho Slaidburn 6 Billington 3 Mellor Brook 3 Sabden 9 Wiswell (nwoa) Billington & Old Langho 6.7 Osbaldeston 138 Chipping 584 Mellor Slaidburn 9 Clayton-le-Dale with Ramsgreave Read & Simonstone 6 Brockhall 3 Read & Simonstone 3 Gisburn (nwba) Gisburn, Rimington 6.3 Slaidburn 123 1116 Billington Billington 5 Calderstones 3 Ribchester 3 Langho 8 Langho (nwba) Whalley 6.3 Billington 123 Derby and Thornley 1447 Wilpshire Bolton-by-Bowland 5 Chipping 3 Sabden 3 Chipping 9 Mellor (nwba) Read & Simonstone 5.6 Calderstones 113 Dilworth 1075 Chatburn Ribchester 6 Copster Green 3 Chipping 2 Chatburn 6 Mellor Brook (nwba) Littlemoor (Clitheroe) 5.5 Chipping 104 Edisford and Low Moor 1252 Gisburn Wilpshire 5 Read & Simonstone 3 Downham 2 Dunsop Bridge 6 Read & Simonstone (nwba) Chatburn 5.3 Copster Green 89 Gisburn, Rimington 617 Read & Simonstone Grindleton 4 Ribchester 3 Calderstones 1 Bolton-by-Bowland 5 Wilpshire (nwba) St Mary's (Clitheroe) 5.2 Waddington 83 Langho 997 Mellor Brook Hurst Green 4 Sabden 3 Grindleton 1 Mellor Brook 5 Worston (nwba) Mellor 5.1 West Bradford 80 Littlemoor 1446 Wilpshire 3 + rail Rimington 5 Barrow 4 station Hurst Green 1 Billington (w1orM) Alston & Hothersall (Longridge) 4.9 Dunsop Bridge 77 Mellor 1217 Downham 4 Downham 2 Mellor 1 Mellor 4 Calderstones (w1orM) Langho 4.9 Bolton-by-Bowland 59 Primrose 1425 Dunsop Bridge 4 Mellor 2 Sawley 1 Waddington 4 Chatburn (w1orM) Dilworth (Longridge) 4.5 Wiswell 59 Read and Simonstone 1134 Gisburn 3 Rimington 2 Waddington 1 Hurst Green 4 Downham (w1orM) Wiswell & Pendleton 4.5 Sabden 54 Ribchester 706 Billington 3 Less Sustainable defined Waddington 3 Waddington 2 West Bradford 1 Hurst Green (w1orM) Sabden 4.4 Wilpshire 46 Sabden 630 settlements West Bradford 3 West Bradford 2 Wilpshire 1 Brockhall 3 Newton (w1orM) Salthill (Clitheroe) 4.2 Hurst Green 46 St Mary's 1299 Brockhall Mellor Brook 3 Dunsop Bridge 1 Brockhall 0 Grindleton 2 Pendleton (w1orM) Derby with Thornley 4.2 Ribchester 37 Salthill 1371 Waddington Sawley 3 Grindleton 1 Copster Green 0 Downham 2 Ribchester (w1orM) Edisford & Low Moor (Clitheroe) 4.1 Mellor Brook 28 Waddington and West Bradford 1379 Sabden Osbaldeston 3 Hurst Green 1 Dunsop Bridge 0 Copster Green 1 Tosside (w1orM) Primrose (Clitheroe) 3.9 Newton 28 Whalley 1596 Pendleton Brockhall 2 Newton 1 Newton 0 Holden 1 Bolton-by-Bowland (w2orM) Chatburn 25 Wilpshire 1045 Osbaldeston Tosside 2 Osbaldeston 1 Osbaldeston 0 Newton 1 Chipping (w2orM) (information in this column only Worston 21 Wiswell and Pendleton 596 Newton Osbaldeston 1 Available at a Parish, not Newton 2 Sawley 1 Rimington 0 Dunsop Bridge (w2orM) settlement, Mellor 18 West Bradford Pendleton 2 Slaidburn Slaidburn 0 Pendleton 1 Grindleton (w2orM) level) Holden 14 (information in this column only Tosside Rimington 2 Bolton-by-Bowland 0 Bolton-by-Bowland 0 Sawley 1 Holden (w2orM) Rimington 14 Available at a Parish, not settlement, Rimington Wiswell 1 Holden 0 Holden 0 Tosside 1 Sabden (w2orM) Downham 9 level) Sawley Worston 1 Pendleton 0 Pendleton 0 West Bradford 1 Sawley (w2orM) Pendleton 6 Grindleton Holden 0 Tosside 0 Tosside 0 Wiswell 1 Slaidburn (w2orM) Brockhall 0 Calderstones Copster Green 0 Wiswell 0 Wiswell 0 Calderstones 0 Waddington (w2orM) Sawley 0 Worston Calderstones 0 Worston 0 Worston 0 Worston 0 West Bradford (w2orM) Tosside 0 Wiswell Holden Downham (nwoa) = not within or adjacent to a constraint Chipping (nwba)= not within but adjacent to a constraint Slaidburn (w1orM) = within one or more constraint areas Bolton-by-Bowland (w2orM) = within two or more constraint areas Dunsop Bridge Hurst green Ribchester Access to employment assumed if possible to access destination by direct bus to arrive before 9am and return home after 5pm Copster Green
1600 total houses to be provided in these 32 settlements 576 residual to go into the 32 settlements
18
6. Existing housing commitments- planning permissions and completions
The Inspector has asked for capacity information to be taken into account. It is important to have an understanding of the level of permissions and completions within the defined settlements.
As the table on page 3 illustrates, 1,600 dwellings are to be provided within the 32 defined settlements. Of this, 1655 8 dwellings have been committed through either planning permissions or completions. This equates to an oversupply in these settlements of 55, however, as an adjustment of 200 units is made from the Longridge total and is proposed to be reapportioned to the most sustainable of the defined settlements, the total number of units required in the 32 defined settlements is 145.
Table 7
Settlement 1 2 3 4 5 7 No of No of houses already Unadjusted Longridge Proposed Residual houses to completed/permissions residual Adjustment Strategic number of be given 10 for each (less no 11 site 12 houses provided 9 settlement area (based on already required for the Parish) completed/ each permission settlement 13 given) Clitheroe 2,320 1040 1280 1040 240 Longridge 1,160 327 833 633 633 Whalley 520 588 0 (-68) 0 Non-defined 0 432 0 (-432) settlements/areas (8 settlements) 14 Other ‘Defined 1,600 1223 377 Settlements’ (32 settlements) 1,600 1655 -55 145 145 Standen 1040 Total 5,600 3610 2058 1040 2058
Based on this, 145 units are required to be apportioned across the 9 ‘most sustainable’ of the defined settlements. Consideration is given to assigning specific housing targets to these 9 settlements according to their ability to accommodate development. This will guide further allocations however it has to be recognised that the hosing numbers are targets and not absolute ceilings.
8 As at 31 st March 2014. 9 For the 3 main settlements, total number of dwellings is 4000. Number of houses is calculated from settlement population as a % of total main settlement population – Clitheroe 58%, Longridge 29% and Whalley 13%. 10 Does not include sites that are awaiting completion of section 106 agreements at 31 st March 2014. 11 This allowance reflects development allowed at appeal of 200 units in Preston Borough at Whittingham Lane- 200 units are therefore reapportioned to the most sustainable settlements within the defined settlements. 12 Proposed strategic site – 1040 dwellings proposed at Standen. 1040 taken from Clitheroe requirement. 13 As at 31 st March 2014 – applications have been approved since. 14 Whilst there are 40 villages in the Ribble Valley, only 32 of these are categorised as ‘defined settlements’- these are the settlements where development is to be allocated. Whilst some development has taken place outside of these settlements (in the remaining 8 villages), the Core Strategy development Strategy, once adopted, should prevent further development taking place in these locations.
19
7. Impact on likely additional development across the 32 defined settlements
As the nine ‘more sustainable’ defined settlements have been determined within chapter 5 of this paper, it is now possible to identify the number of units needed in the more sustainable settlements. The approach taken uses one of a population based approach, similar to that previously used in the Core Strategy for calculating the requirement for Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley. The population for each of the nine most sustainable of the ‘other defined settlements’ has been estimated using information from the 2011 Census 15 .
The populations for the nine settlements are shown in column 1 of table 8 according to population size. Column 2 presents this information as a percentage of all of the 9 ‘more sustainable’ settlements for information purposes.
Table 8
Settlement 1. 2. Population of As % of total settlement population of the nine settlements Wilpshire 3816 29% Read & Simonstone 2168 16% Billington 1629 12% Langho 1599 12% Mellor 1432 11% Chatburn 1102 8% Barrow 646 5% Mellor Brook 411 3% Gisburn 379 3% TOTAL 13182 100%
The information in relation of Mellor Brook relates to the population, which is within the settlement in the Ribble Valley Borough. The Council recognises that the settlement Borough boundary effectively dissects the whole settlement, part of which is in the South Ribble Borough Council administrative area. If that area was included, it is estimated that the population of the whole settlement would be about 520.
It is clear from the above that Wilpshire is significantly the largest of the more sustainable settlements in terms of population. This reflects its long recognised urban nature and relationship with Blackburn. There is a further cluster of five settlements with populations in excess of 1000. The remaining three, Mellor Brook, Gisburn and Barrow have much smaller populations, however Barrow has been a receptor for growth and is recognised as a main location for employment where strategic employment opportunities will be promoted. With this in mind, the settlements can be banded to enable targets, relative to the nature of the settlement to be established. The 9 settlements have consequently been banded into 3 groups, which reflects the population scale, shown in column 1 of table 8.
15 Population estimates are compiled using the “best fit” of Output Areas that correspond with the settlement defined according to the settlement boundaries of the District-wide Local Plan. Whilst not an exact fit, these are considered to be the best estimates that can be complied. Population in dwellings constructed since the 2011 census will not be included.
20
Taking account of the above, it is suggested therefore that the 145 residual requirement be distributed among these settlements in bands as shown in table 9 to reflect the significance of Wilpshire and Barrow, a broad spread of development to the remaining larger settlements and a modest provision in the smaller villages to support in particular affordable housing.
Table 9
Category Settlement Apportionment of residual requirement Tier 1 village Wilpshire 45 Tier 1 village Barrow 0 Tier 1 village Read & Simonstone 18 Tier 1 village Billington 18 Tier 1 village Langho 18 Tier 1 village Mellor 18 Tier 1 village Chatburn 18 Tier 1 village Mellor Brook 5 Tier 1 village Gisburn 5 TOTAL 145
As previously stated, it should be noted that the determination of a requirement should not be taken as a ceiling; it is feasible that other developments may come forward in the plan period which, with in the overall policy context of the plan, are acceptable.
For information, Tier 1 Village Settlements are the 9 most sustainable of the 32 defined settlements and the Tier 2 Village Settlements are the 23 less sustainable of the 32 settlements.
21
Based upon the consideration and analysis of the above information, the table below (table 10) sets out the likely development anticipated within each of the defined settlements in the borough.
Table 10: Likely development across the defined other settlements
Category Settlement Planning Permissions/ Residual Completions for number of residential 2008- present 16 houses to be developed up to 2028 17
Principal Settlement Clitheroe 1040 240 Principal Settlement Longridge 327 633 Principal Settlement Whalley 588 0 Strategic Site Standen 0 1,040 Tier 1 Village Settlement Wilpshire 21 45 Tier 1 Village Settlement Barrow 710 LNH/RB Tier 1 Village Settlement Read & 27 18 Simonstone Tier 1 Village Settlement Billington 58 18 Tier 1 Village Settlement Langho 3 18 Tier 1 Village Settlement Mellor 20 18 Tier 1 Village Settlement Chatburn 9 18 Tier 1 Village Settlement Mellor Brook 18 5 Tier 1 Village Settlement Gisburn 11 5 Tier 2 Village Settlement Copster 19 LNH/ RB Green Tier 2 Village Settlement Brockhall 44 LNH/ RB Tier 2 Village Settlement Waddington 9 LNH/ RB Tier 2 Village Settlement Sabden 129 LNH/ RB Tier 2 Village Settlement Pendleton 0 LNH/ RB Tier 2 Village Settlement Osbaldeston 0 LNH/ RB Tier 2 Village Settlement Newton 1 LNH/ RB Tier 2 Village Settlement West 3 LNH/ RB Bradford Tier 2 Village Settlement Tosside 1 LNH/ RB Tier 2 Village Settlement Rimington 6 LNH/ RB Tier 2 Village Settlement Sawley 3 LNH/ RB Tier 2 Village Settlement Grindleton 5 LNH/ RB Tier 2 Village Settlement Calderstones 85 LNH/ RB Tier 2 Village Settlement Worston 0 LNH/ RB Tier 2 Village Settlement Wiswell 0 LNH/ RB Tier 2 Village Settlement Holden 0 LNH/ RB Tier 2 Village Settlement Downham 0 LNH/ RB Tier 2 Village Settlement Chipping 23 LNH/ RB Tier 2 Village Settlement Slaidburn 0 LNH/ RB Tier 2 Village Settlement Bolton-by- 1 LNH/ RB Bowland Tier 2 Village Settlement Dunsop 0 LNH/ RB Bridge Tier 2 Village Settlement Hurst Green 6 LNH/ RB Tier 2 Village Settlement Ribchester 11 LNH/ RB
LNR/RB means Local Needs Housing or development which has Regeneration Benefits only will be allowed in these settlements.
16 Commitment figures in settlements, not parish. Information taken from Housing Land Monitoring Report 31 st March 2014, but takes account of the Barrowlands appeal approval of 504 units in Barrow. 17 Figures are correct as at 31 st March 2014. The residual figure is based on an average annual requirement of 280 units.
22
8. Summary implications for the Core Strategy
The findings of this work have resulted in main modifications to the Core Strategy being necessary. This has lead to the following changes:
1. Wording to Key Statement DS1: Development Strategy has been amended to take into consideration the findings of this report.
2. Development Management policies DMG2: Strategic Considerations has been amended to reflect the proposed categorisation of the ‘most sustainable’ and ‘less sustainable’ other defined settlements.
4. The following text will be included within the Core Strategy to illustrate the anticipated level of housing within each of the defined other settlements.
5. The table at appendix 2 (para 15.2) provides detailed numerical information on how it is proposed the residential development in the borough will be distributed. This table will be replaced with the following (table 11 below):
Table 11
Settlement 1 2 3 4 5 7 No of No of houses already Unadjusted Longridge Proposed Residual houses to completed/permissions residual Adjustment Strategic number of be given 19 for each (less no 20 site 21 houses provided 18 settlement area (based on already required for the Parish) completed/ each permission settlement 22 given) Clitheroe 2,320 1040 1280 1040 240 Longridge 1,160 327 833 633 633 Whalley 520 588 0 (-68) 0 Non-defined 0 432 0 (-432) settlements/areas (8 settlements) 23 Other ‘Defined 1,600 1223 377 Settlements’ (32 settlements) 1,600 1655 -55 145 145 Standen 1040 Total 5,600 3610 2058 1040 2058
18 For the 3 main settlements, total number of dwellings is 4000. Number of houses is calculated from settlement population as a % of total main settlement population – Clitheroe 58%, Longridge 29% and Whalley 13%. 19 Does not include sites that are awaiting completion of section 106 agreements at 31 st March 2014. 20 This allowance reflects development allowed at appeal of 200 units in Preston Borough at Whittingham Lane- 200 units are therefore reapportioned to the most sustainable settlements within the defined settlements. 21 Proposed strategic site – 1040 dwellings proposed at Standen. 1040 taken from Clitheroe requirement. 22 As at 31 st March 2014 – applications have been approved since. 23 Whilst there are 40 villages in the Ribble Valley, only 32 of these are categorised as ‘defined settlements’- these are the settlements where development is to be allocated. Whilst some development has taken place outside of these settlements (in the remaining 8 villages), the Core Strategy Development Strategy, once adopted, should prevent further development taking place in these locations.
23 Appendix 2 Examination of Ribble Valley Borough Council Core Strategy
Proposed main modifications to the submission document
Pag Policy/ Ref Main Modification e Paragraph Proposed main modifications that have undergone public consultation. Please note, some of these modifications have been updated to reflect the most up to date monitoring information from 31 st Match 2014 or the most recent position since the close of the EiP Hearing sessions.
MM1 34 Paragraph Revised wording of the objective to read “To increase the 3.12 supply of affordable and decent homes in the borough to help meet identified needs”. MM2 39 Key First paragraph - delete…the main urban areas of the borough Statement and replace text with “t he principle settlements of Clitheroe, DS1: Longridge and Whalley ”. Developme nt Strategy
MM3 39 Key First paragraph - after…and the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone Statement add new sentence “ New retail and leisure development will be DS1: directed towards the centres of Clitheroe, Longridge and Developme Whalley ”. nt Strategy
MM4 39 Key Second paragraph – see Key Statement DS1 attached as an Statement appendix to this document. DS1: Developme nt Strategy
MM5 39 Key New third paragraph- see Key Statement DS1 attached as an Statement appendix to this document. DS1: Developme nt Strategy MM6 39 Key New fourth paragraph - add “In allocating development, the Statement Council will have regard to the AONB, Green Belt and similar DS1: designations when establishing the scale, extent and form of Developme development to be allocated under this policy. The relevant nt Strategy constraints are set out as part of the strategic framework included in this plan”.
MM7 41 Paragraph Following the close of the EiP Hearing sessions in January 4.11 2014, it is proposed that this main modification be removed (see main modification 25 for clarity).
New Paragraph (after table of housing distribution) The housing model makes a modeled assumption based on a number of dwellings averaged across the defined settlements. It is important to bare in mind an average; some settlements will accommodate more, whilst others, due to their recognised constraints may accommodate less. The Council
1
Pag Policy/ Ref Main Modification e Paragraph will use the Core Strategy framework to set out the patterns and scale of growth through the Housing & Economic DPD . MM8 41 Paragraph Update table with following figures: 4.11 The impact of this strategy in relation to the strategic pattern of distribution is detailed in Appendix 2 to the Core Strategy. In summary this development strategy means that the following distribution of housing results in:
Location Residual number of houses
required for each settlement 17 Clitheroe 240
Longridge 633 Whalley 0
Other settlements 145
Standen 1040
Total 2058
Footnote 17 at bottom of page 42 should now say: “As at 31 st March 2014 - all applications that have been approved since will reduce this number”.
MM9 48 Key Add text after.. carbon footprint. “The Council will assess Statement applications against the current Code for Sustainable Homes, EN3: Lifetime Homes and Buildings for Life and BREEAM Sustainable standards. Developme nt and Climate Change
MM10 66 Key Statement Policy Statement to be updated with revised employment land EC1: requirements including non B1, B2 and B8 uses together with Business relevant retail floor space following consultation on evidence and base. Employmen t Developme nt
MM11 69 Add new paragraph to statement Key Provision for new convenience retail floor space of up to 1815 Statement sq m for Clitheroe, 140 sq m for Longridge and 250 sq m for EC2: Whalley will be allocated. Developme Provision for new comparison retail floor space of up to 2630 nt of Retail, sq m for Clitheroe, 640 sq m for Longridge and 240 sq m for Shops and Whalley will be allocated. Community Facilities
MM12 56 Chapter 6: Update Key Statement with following figures: Housing
2
Pag Policy/ Ref Main Modification e Paragraph KEY STATEMENT H1: HOUSING PROVISION Land for residential development will be made available to deliver 4,000 5,600 dwellings, estimated at an average annual completion rate target of at least 200 280 dwellings per year over the period 2008 to 2028 in accordance with baseline information.
The Council will identify through the relevant “Strategic Housing Land Availability Study” (SHLAA), sites for residential development that are deliverable over a five-year period. By reference to the housing land monitoring report and where appropriate Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments, the Council will endeavor to ensure housing land is identified for the full 15 year period and beyond.
A ‘plan-monitor-manage’ approach will be adopted and a monitoring report will be the key tool in tracking the five-year rolling land supply. The overall housing requirement will be subject to a formal review within five years from the date of adoption of the Core Strategy to ensure it remains the appropriate strategic figure with which to plan.
MM13 57 Paragraph These figures wil l be treated as a minimum target unless 6.4 otherwise determined . A phased approach to the release of land will be adopted as the most suitable way forward in delivering development land. Further detail on housing allocations will be given in the Housing and Economic DPD.
MM14 151 Appendix 2 Update text with following dates:
This Appendix provides information regarding the assessment of how residential development is to be distributed. The housing information uses the most recently published housing land availability information as at the 1st July 2012 31 st March 2014 in order to ensure that a clear base date is applied. It is important to note that any planning approvals since that date would need to be taken account of and consequently the residual number of houses shown in the table will be less. The Council publishes its housing land study quarterly.
MM15 151 Appendix 2 Update text with figures as set out below: Paragraph 15.1 Number of Houses to provide 2008 - 2028 = 4000 5600 The strategy model provides for a minimum of 1120 1600 of these units across other settlements.
4000 - 1120 = 2880 5600-1600 = 4000 houses to be provided by the 3 main settlement areas of Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley.
Revised footnote 20 to clarify as follows: This is cal culated as
3
Pag Policy/ Ref Main Modification e Paragraph the average across the other settlements equating to 45 dwellings per settlement. Actual provision across the other defined settlements will be a matter for the allocations process is set out in the ‘Housing in the defined settlements’ paper .
MM16 152 Appendix 2 Table showing residual number if houses required for each Paragraph main settlement based on main settlement population. 15.2 It is now proposed that the housing requirement be increased from 5000 to 5600. The proposed modification is therefore included as an attachment to this document. This table also reflects the most up to date Housing Land Availability Monitoring information from 31 st March 2014.
MM17 153 Appendix 2 Number of houses in supply as 2033 (993 + at 1st October 2011 31 st March 1040) 3610 2014 plus proposed strategic (2570+1040) site
Residual number of houses 1484 2058
Number of Houses to provide 4000 5600
2008 - 2028
Proposed Modifications as set out in the submission version of the Council’s statements in relation to Issues and Matters which have not undergone public consultation MM18 135 Chapter 12: Glossary (to Add new bullet 1 as follows: the definition of Bullet 1 “A defined settlement is one which contains at least ‘settlement’) 20 dwellings and a shop or public house or place of worship or school or village hall, i.e. they are of a size and form that justifies treatment as a settlement. Settlements smaller than this limit will not be given settlement boundaries as they are not considered to be large enough or to contain enough facilities to allow for growth.”
MM19 59 Paragraph 6.8 and 6.9 Replace paragraphs 6.8 and 6.9 with a new para 6.8 below:
“The current Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) of 2013 indicates that the Borough requires two additional residential pitches to be created in the period 2023 to 2028. Given this level of need it is not proposed to formally allocate a site but to manage provision through the development management process guided by relevant policies. This position will be reviewed in the light of future GTAA updates. The GTAA also indicated that there is no identified need for sites for Travelling Showpeople in the area .”
4
Pag Policy/ Ref Main Modification e Paragraph Delete para 6.9.
MM20 101 Policy DME5 Replace “request” with “require” paragraph 10.16 (second paragraph) Proposed Modifications arising from issues raised during the Examination Hearing sessions which have not undergone public consultation MM21 41 Table at The table included in the attached schedule which sets out para. 4.11 Policy DS1, replaces the table at 4.11 of the Core Strategy (Post 5.14). It includes both the residual figures and the total figures, as well as the proposed distribution for the Tier 1 villages, Teri 2 villages and tier 3 villages.
MM22 58 Key All references to the word ‘elderly’ have been replaced by the Statement phrase ‘older people’ in Key Statement H3 and Development H3 Management policy DMH1.
103 Policy DMH1 MM23 50 Policy ENV4 New text added to end of second paragraph of Key Statement EN4 as follows:
It will be the developer’s responsibility to identify and agree an acceptable scheme, accompanied by appropriate survey information, before an application is determined. There should, as a principle, be no net loss of a net enhancement of biodiversity.
MM24 159 Chapter 16 See attached key diagram. MM25 39 Para. 4.2 & See attached extract Key Statement DS1. after table in para 4.11 MM26 Pag After para. Subsequent planning documents will include detailed e 10 1.4 boundaries set out on an Ordnance survey plan base to show those specific sites the Council proposes to allocate for differing forms of development. Allocations will be made as required for housing, employment uses and for town centre development as identified. Where the Council allocates land further details will be included such as the number and expected nature of housing. For example the allocations process will be used to identify locations and types of housing to meet provision for older- persons needs. Allocations will also be included for affordable or housing to meet particular needs. Similarly, with employment land the allocation process will identify the anticipated nature and type of employment use that will be supported. Detailed settlement boundaries to help manage development across the defined settlements will also be provided through the allocations process informed by the allocation of land or commitments to development.
5
Pag Policy/ Ref Main Modification e Paragraph
The allocations document will also provide information on areas that are subject to differing designations such as flood risk areas, nature designations, heritage or landscape protection to support the application of the relevant policy framework established in the Core Strategy. Where requirements for specific infrastructure has been identified such as school sites, highways proposals or service infrastructure, these will be identified where appropriate.
The Core Strategy will be subject to a monitoring process to ensure its policies are addressing the aims and objectives of the plan and also that it is kept up to date with regard to any implications of changes to the underlying evidence base or legislative or national policy framework. Monitoring will be undertaken on an annual basis however it is intended that the plan itself will be subject to a formal review process where the need for any changes to the plan will be considered through a managed review process. This may result in parts of the plan being reviewed through the statutory process as a partial review or if appropriate a whole plan review. Specifically the housing requirement of the plan has been identified for review as a matter of Council policy within 5 years of the date of adoption in order to ensure that the most appropriate strategic figure for housing is being planned for. Any changes to the Core Strategy may lead to a need to review either partially or in full other associated planning policy documents .
MM27 10 After para. See Main Modification 26 (MM26). 1.4 MM28 120 Chapter 11 See attached section on monitoring. MM29 83 Chapter 9 Add the following text in relation to flood risk as the last sentence to paragraph 3 of the supporting text to the Standen Strategic Site policy.
“A small part of the site, adjacent to Pendleton Brook, lies within Flood Zone 2 and 3, where development will be restricted to water compatible uses (i.e. amenity open space areas).
Also add text at end of policy statement:
Phasing will be considered through the Development Management process in conjunction with the landowner/s including the preparation of associated detailed masterplans and legal agreements together with development and design briefs prepared as Supplementary Planning Documents as appropriate.
MM30 66 Key Add to policy statement EC1 as new first paragraph. Statement EC1 “Employment development will be directed towards the main settlements of Clitheroe, Whalley and Longridge as the preferred
6
Pag Policy/ Ref Main Modification e Paragraph locations to accommodate employment growth together with land at Barrow Enterprise Site, the Lancashire Enterprise Zone at Samlesbury and locations well related to the A59 corridor”.
Amend 2 nd paragraph: replace 9 hectares with 8 hectares
MM31 120 Chapter 11 See attached section on monitoring for service centre health checks. MM32 101 Chapter 10 Add the following text on page 101, paragraph 3, after last Policy bullet: DME5 Para 3 Outside these areas on the key diagram renewable energy schemes will be considered to be appropriate in principle subject to other policies in the plan. 101 Policy Amend text on page 101, paragraph 2, to the following: DME5 Para 2 …at least 10% of their predicted energy requirements should come from decentralized and renewable or low carbon sources unless the applicant can demonstrate that this is not feasible or viable.
MM33 48 Key Paragraph 1, final sentence to be amended to text below: Statement EN3 The Council will assess applications against the current code for sustainable homes, lifetime homes and building for life Para 1 and BREEAM standards, or any subsequent nationally recognised equivalent standards . MM34 78 After para. Include text below after para. 810: 8.10 8.11 The Council is committed to ensure the necessary infrastructure is brought forward to meet the needs of the area resulting from proposed growth and development. The Council will continue to work with relevant authorities, public bodies and agencies to secure the delivery of infrastructure in a timely and effective manner. In providing a policy framework through this Core Strategy and the use of its Planning powers relevant infrastructure can be delivered. Statutory undertakers such as United Utilities and relevant authorities such as Lancashire County Council, and NHS England will need to meet their legal responsibilities for the provision of water and water treatment, health services to meet the needs of the areas and school facilities. However much of this provision will be dependant upon the timing of development, the emerging needs to be addressed at the time and capacity of existing provision.
8.12 The Borough Council will continue to work closely with providers and partners to ensure the needs of the area are addressed. The Council will produce an allocations document that will, in conjunction with housing and employment site allocations, seek to identify specific proposals for supporting infrastructure to ensure land is reserved to meet future needs
7
Pag Policy/ Ref Main Modification e Paragraph in a coordinated manner. Actual investment in infrastructure will be dependent upon the spending and investment plans of the responsible authority, including the borough council. The Core Strategy provides a strategic framework to allow those bodies to consider investment plans whilst the subsequent, detailed allocations stage will provide the opportunity for site and project specific policy to be set out.
8.13 Highway infrastructure will be a key part of ongoing development in the area as recognised in the County Councils East Lancashire Transport Masterplan and through specific measures identified in relation to development such as the new roundabout to the Pendle Road/A59 junction required to facilitate the Standen Strategic site, works to improve traffic flows and capacity around Clitheroe and Whalley centres and traffic and parking management measures identified in relation to Clitheroe and Whalley which form part of the legal agreements to current development commitments. Car parking facilities are monitored by the Borough Council with provision currently under review and opportunities to increase capacity being considered in both Whalley and Clitheroe through local projects to provide additional parking and manage the use of existing facilities. The Councils stated commitment to work to secure necessary infrastructure, its joint working arrangements, this policy framework and powers available to the Council will work to ensure that growth is successfully accommodated and that new facilities are available to enhance the local area as a place to live, work and visit.
MM35 10 After para. See Main Modification 26 (MM26) 1.4 MM36 78 After para. See Main Modification 34 (MM34) 810 MM37 88 Policy Fifth bullet point of DMG1 to be amended to text below: DMG1 Provide consider adequate day lighting and privacy distances
MM38 88 Policy Text added to Policy DMG1 as follows: DMG1 INFRASTRUCTURE 1. NOT RESULT IN THE NET LOSS OF IMPORTANT OPEN SPACE, INCLUDING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PLAYING FIELDS WITHOUT A ROBUST ASSESSMENT THAT THE SITES ARE SURPLUS TO NEED . IN ASSESSING THIS, REGARD MUST BE HAD TO THE LEVEL OF PROVISION AND STANDARD OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE IN THE AREA, THE IMPORTANCE OF PLAYING FIELDS AND THE NEED TO PROTECT SCHOOL PLAYING FIELDS TO MEET FUTURE NEEDS. REGARD WILL ALSO BE HAD TO THE LANDSCAPE OR TOWNSCAPE OF AN AREA AND THE IMPORTANCE THE OPEN SPACE HAS ON THIS.
8
Pag Policy/ Ref Main Modification e Paragraph MM39 88 Policy Bullet point 18 of DMG1- add new text below: DMG1 and Policy The Code for Suitable Homes and Lifetime Homes, or any DME5 subsequent nationally recognised equivalent standards , should be incorporated into schemes
Policy DME5 has been aligned with DMG1 through the amendment by adding text to the end of bullet point 6 of Policy DME5:
National or local targets for generating energy from renewable sources and for reducing carbon emissions As SPECIFIED WITHIN POLICY DMG1
MM40 88 Policy Bullet points will be grouped under the themes: DMG1 Design Access Environment Amenity Infrastructure
MM41 90 Policy Amend paragraph 2 of Policy DMG2 as per the text below: DMG2 Outside the defined settlement areas development must meet at least one of the following considerations
MM42 90 Policy Amend paragraph 2, bullet point 3 of Policy DMG2, as per the DMG2 text below:
And The development is for Local Needs Housing which meets Chapter 12: and identified need and is secured as such Glossary Local Needs Housing definition: Local needs housing is the housing developed to meet the needs of existing and concealed housing living within the parish and surrounding parishes which is evidenced by the Housing Needs Survey for the parish ,the housing Waiting List and the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. MM43 129 Chapter 12: Add the following definition of a major application to the Glossary glossary
Major proposals include large buildings more than 1000m2 floor space and developments of more than 10 dwellings or more . MM44 98 DME4 Under section 1. Conservation Areas of Policy DME4 amend text as follows
Proposals within or closely related to conservation areas should conserve and enhance not harm the area.
MM45 104 Policy Text to be added to bullet point one of Policy DMH3 as set out DMH2 below
9
Pag Policy/ Ref Main Modification e Paragraph Development essential for the purposes of agriculture or residential development which meets and indentified local need. In assessing any proposal for an agricultural, forestry or other essential workers dwellings a functional and financial test will be applied.
MM46 106 Policy Amend bullet point one of policy DMH4 as set out below: DMH4 The building is not isolated in the landscape, i.e. it is within a defined settlement or forms part of an already group of buildings, and
MM47 88 Policy Add text to bullet point in Policy DMG1 as follows: DMG1 Achieve efficient land use and the re use and remediation of previously developed sites where possible. Previously developed sites should always be used instead of greenfield sites where possible
MM48 155 After para 15.3 in See attached housing trajectory. appendix 2. MM49 10 After Para. See Main Modification 26 (MM26) 1.4 MM50 58 Key Para 6 of Key Statement H3 to read as follows to reflect Statement threshold for older people provision. H3
Providing housing for older people the elderly is a priority for the Council within the Housing Strategy. Within the negotiations for housing developments, 15% of the units will be sought for older people elderly provision on sites of 10 units or more. Within this 15% figure a minimum of 50% would be affordable and be included within the overall affordable housing threshold of 30%. The remaining 50% (i.e the remaining 50% of the 15% older people elderly -related element) will be for market housing for older persons elderly groups.
MM51 59 Between Add in following text between para 6.7 and 6.8 as follows: paragraph 6.7 and 6.8 Older people’s housing should meet the lifetime homes standard as a minimum. This is the standard designed to accommodate the changing needs of occupants of housing throughout their lives. Here are 16 standards promoted in the Rowntree Foundation report ‘Meeting Part M and Designing Lifetime Homes’ such as wider doorways, wheelchair access, downstairs toilet and provision for a future stair lift .
MM52 10 After para. See Main Modification 26 (MM26) 1.4
10
Pag Policy/ Ref Main Modification e Paragraph MM53 52 Key Include revised text following response from English Statement Heritage. EN5
See schedule of changes to Development Management 98 Policy policies. DME4 MM54 Policy Add following text to second and third para of DMG2: DMG2 Strategic considerations
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IN THE PRINCIPAL SETTLEMENTS OF CLITHEROE, LONGRIDGE AND WHALLEY AND THE MORE SUSTAINABLE DEFINED SETTLEMENTS (TIER 1 VILLAGES) SHOULD CONSOLIDATE, EXPAND OR ROUND-OFF DEVELOPMENT SO THAT IT IS CLOSELY RELATED TO THE MAIN BUILT UP AREAS, ENSURING THIS IS APPROPRIATE TO THE SCALE OF, AND IN KEEPING WITH, THE EXISTING SETTLEMENT. Within the less sustainable of the defined settlements (tier 2 villages) and Outside the defined settlement areas development must meet at least one of the following considerations:
Key:
Red text = Explanatory text showing intent to amend.
Blue text = New text added as an amendment.
Strikethrough = Shows intent to remove text from the document.
11
ATTACHMENTS
12
Main Modification 16
Settlement 1 2 3 4 5 7 No of No of houses already Unadjusted Longridge Proposed Residual houses to completed/permissions residual (less Adjustment 3 Strategic number of be given 2 for each settlement no already site 4 houses provided 1 area (based on the Parish) completed/ required for permission each given) settlement 5 Clitheroe 2,320 1040 1280 1040 240 Longridge 1,160 327 833 633 633 Whalley 520 588 0 (-68) 0 Non-defined 0 432 0 (-432) settlements/areas 6 (8 settlements) Other ‘Defined 1,600 1223 377 Settlements’ (32 settlements) 1,600 1655 -55 145 145 Standen 1040 Total 5,600 3610 2058 1040 2058
1 For the 3 main settlements, total number of dwellings is 4000. Number of houses is calculated from settlement population as a % of total main settlement population – Clitheroe 58%, Longridge 29% and Whalley 13%. 2 Does not include sites that are awaiting completion of section 106 agreements at 31 st March 2014. 3 This allowance reflects development allowed at appeal of 200 units in Preston Borough at Whittingham Lane- 200 units are therefore reapportioned to the most sustainable settlements within the defined settlements. 4 Proposed strategic site – 1040 dwellings proposed at Standen. 1040 taken from Clitheroe requirement. 5 As at 31 st March 2014 – applications have been approved since. 6 Whilst there are 40 villages in the Ribble Valley, only 32 of these are categorised as ‘defined settlements’- these are the settlements where development is to be allocated. Whilst some development has taken place outside of these settlements (in the remaining 8 villages), the Core Strategy development Strategy, once adopted, should prevent further development taking place in these locations.
13
Main Modification 21 & 25: Policy DS1 4.2 The Proposed preferred option
KEY STATEMENT DS1: DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
The majority of new housing development will be • concentrated within an identified strategic site located to the south of Clitheroe towards the A59; and • the main urban areas of the borough the principal settlements of o Clitheroe, o Longridge, and o Whalley .
Strategic employment opportunities will be promoted through the development of • the Barrow Enterprise Site as a main location for employment, and • the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone.
New retail and leisure development will be directed toward the centres of • Clitheroe, • Longridge, and • Whalley .
In addition to the identified strategic site at Standen and the borough’s principal settlements, development will be focused towards the Tier 1 Villages, which are the more sustainable of the 32 defined settlements:
• Barrow • Billington • Chatburn • Gisburn • Langho
• Mellor
• Mellor Brook
• Read & Simonstone • Wilpshire
14
In the 23 remaining Tier 2 Village settlements, which are the less sustainable of the 32 defined settlements, development will need to meet proven lo cal needs or deliver regeneration benefits. The Tier 2 Village settlements are:
• Bolton-by-Bowland • Brockhall • Calderstones • Chipping • Copster Green • Downham • Dunsop Bridge
In general, the scale of planned housing growth will be managed to reflect existing p opulation size, the availability of, or the opportunity to provide facilities to serve the development and the extent to which development can be accommodated within the local area. Specific allocations will be made through the preparation of a separate allocations DPD.
In allocating development, the Council will have regard to the AONB, Green Belt and similar designations when establishing the scale, extent and form of development to be allocated under this strategy. The relevant constraints are set out as part of the strategic framework included in this plan.
Development that has recognised regeneration benefits, is for identified local needs or satisfies neighbourhood planning legislation, will be considered in all the borough’s settlements, including small-scale development in the smaller settlements that are appropriate for consolidation and expansion or rounding-off of the built up area.
Through this strategy, development opportunities will be created for economic, social and environmental well- being and development for future generations.
Is the Preferred Option one of those presented at the previous consultation stages?
No. The preferred option is effectively a hybrid approach of Option B and Option D that were presented at the alternative options consultation stage, taking account of up to date information and consideration of views raised in response to consultation. Option B focused development towards Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley whilst option D was based on the use of a Strategic Site. Information on these options can be seen in previous documents. In terms of option D, which saw a large strategic site being proposed towards the south east of Clitheroe on land referred to as Standen Estates, this option was commonly cited as respondents’ preferred option when assessed against the other seven potential options during the consultation. That said, this wasn’t without opposition and concerns relating to the size of the site and potential infrastructure issues that could result if the site was to be developed were also raised. The Sustainability Appraisal options report, which assessed each of the eight potential options for their environmental economic and social sustainability highlighted only three ‘key weaknesses’ for option D which related to the visual impact of such a large site, the potential for additional highway pressure (although it was felt that this could be mitigated through appropriate
15 infrastructure planning and provision at the local level) and finally the uncertainty that results from 50% of the development being spread across the remainder of the borough with no clear indication of how much would go where. In addressing these concerns, yet still ensuring that the benefits of a strategic site are achievable (in terms of infrastructure delivery), under the preferred option the strategic site has been reduced in terms of the scale of proposed housing. It is considered that a smaller number of houses would have a positive impact on addressing potential visual impact issues (though detailed work on this would still be needed) and also reduce the impact of potential highway concerns (though again, further detailed work on this would still be required as part of the infrastructure delivery plan and also during the Development Management process). By creating a hybrid approach of option D and B, the final SA options report concern is also alleviated as it becomes much clearer as to where the remaining development will be located across the rest of the borough. The number of units proposed for the strategic site has been reduced to 1040 dwellings over a 20-year period. This will result in an average annual provision of 52 units per yea r for the site. Phasing of the development will need to be considered and this will be done through the Development Management process including the detailed preparation of associated master plans, together with development and design briefs, working with the landowner and considering the practical implications of, and timing for, the delivery of key infrastructure As stated, in effect an option ‘B’ approach is proposed in calculating the levels of the remaining development across the borough. As with option D, the Sustainability Appraisal options analysis, found this to be a sustainable approach to development, with only one ‘key weakness’ being identified, which related to the need for highways investment in Longridge being required to accommodate the level of growth option B would result in. The SA options report also highlighted a requirement for cohesive working with Preston City Council, which is already taking place. In terms of taking forward the hybrid approach, the option B element would see development distributed primarily according to population distribution of the key settlements, reflecting the calls for an equitable and fairer distribution of development raised during the consultation at the Regulation 18 (25) stage of production. This appr oach places 33% of the required development into the settlements of the borough not classified as a service centre. In creating the hybrid approach based on the two options this 33% distribution has still been applied to the other settlements and the population distribution approach has been applied to the key service centres. The strategic site has also been factored into the revised calculations and, due to its close proximity to the settlement of Clitheroe, has been considered when calculating the distribution of housing number for Clitheroe, albeit still based upon a population distribution model. This approach also significantly reduces the amount of development proposed for Longridge, thus addressing the ‘key weakness’ raised as part of the SA options analysis. The impact of this strategy in relation to the strategic pattern of distribution is detailed in Appendix 2 to the Core Strategy. In summary this development strategy means that the following distribution of housing results in :
16 Category Total number Commitments of houses up to March required for 2014 Residual number of houses Location each 8 required for each settlement settlement over the plan period 7
Principal Settlement Clitheroe 2320 1040 240 Principal Settlement Longridge 1160 327 633 Principal Settlement Whalley 520 588 0 (+68) Strategic site Standen 1040 0 1040 9 Other Settlements 1600 1655 145 (-55+200 )
TOTAL 5600 3610 2058
Distribution set out below Other Settlements: Tier 1 Barrow 710 710 0 Villages (the 9 most sustainable of the defined settlements) Wilpshire 66 21 45 Read & 45 27 18 Simonstone Billington 76 58 18 Langho 21 3 18 Mellor 38 20 18 Chatburn 27 9 18 Mellor Brook 23 18 5 Gisburn 16 11 5
Total 1022 877 145
Other Settlements: Tier 2 23 0 346 0 Villages settlements Local Needs (the 23 less sustainable of Housing/ the defined settlements) Regeneration Benefits only
Housing development not 8 non- 0 432 0 within the 32 defined defined Local Needs settlements or the Principal settlements Housing/ Settlements & outside of Regeneration these Benefits only
The housing model makes a modelled assumption based on a number of dwellings averaged across the defined settlements. It is important to bare in mind an average; some settlements will accommodate m ore, whilst others, due to their recognised constraints may accommodate less. The Council will use the Core Strategy framework to set out the patterns and scale of growth through the Housing & Economic DPD.
7 Figures based upon requirement for 5,600 houses over plan period (280/yr average). Clitheroe figure also includes the 1040 at Standen in this table but is subtracted to calculate the residual. 8 As at 1st July 2012 31 st March 2013 31 st March 2014 – all applications that have been approved since will reduce this number. 9 Figure of 200 units re-apportioned across the 9 Tier 1 settlements from the Longridge adjustment
17 Whilst Barrow is recognised as a Tier 1 Village settlement and therefore one of the more sustainable defined settlements, the distribution takes account of the large commitment to housing that exists as a result of planning permissions at Barrow and consequently further housing development is not being promoted at this settlement.
In relation to employment land, under the preferred strategy, it will continue to be possible to accommodate the minimum required level of land for economic development (9ha 8ha over the remainder of the plan period). It is considered that provision can be included within land at Standen to the south of Clitheroe to generate a mixed development opportunity as well as the opportunity to bring other sites forward to protect choice of locations. The existing site at Barrow Enterprise Park would continue in its role as the borough’s principle strategic location for employment. The Governments recent announcement regarding the designation of an the Enterprise Zone at Samlesbury, which includes land within both Ribble Valley and South Ribble, will offer s the potential to support and strengthen the economy. Through specialist investment it will provide s an opportunity to develop further the economy of the Ribble Valley through service and supply chain growth and is recognised as a strategic site. Under the neighbourhood planning legislation, it would also be possible to bring forward land for economic development where there are demonstrable regeneration benefits and in locations where local communities would like to see development take place.
18 Main Modification 24: Key Diagram :
See separate sheet
19 Main Modification 28 and 31: Monitoring Section :
To be finalised
20 Main Modification 48: Housing trajectory
See separate sheet
21 DECISION RIBBLE VALLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL REPORT TO SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Agenda Item No.
meeting date: THURSDAY, 8 MAY 2014 title: CORE STRATEGY – POST HEARING MODIFICATIONS submitted by: MARSHAL SCOTT – CHIEF EXECUTIVE principal author: COLIN HIRST – HEAD OF REGENERATION AND HOUSING
1 PURPOSE
1.1 To consider modifications suggested by the Inspector following the Examination hearings and next stages of the Examination process.
1.2 Relevance to the Council’s ambitions and priorities:
• Community Objectives – The Core Strategy is the central strategy of the Local Development Framework (LDF). It will help in the delivery of housing, employment and the protection and enhancement of the environment, ultimately presenting the delivery strategy for implementing the vision for the Ribble Valley for the next 20 years. As a tool for delivering spatial policy, the Core Strategy identifies how a range of issues relating to the objectives of a sustainable economy, thriving market towns and housing provision will be addressed through the planning system.
• Corporate Priorities – The Core Strategy is the central document of the LDF and sets the overall vision and approach to future planning policy that will aid performance and consistency.
• Other Considerations – The Council has a duty to prepare spatial policy under the LDF system.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Members will be aware that the Council has been progressing the Core Strategy through its Examination stage since the Council’s plan was formally submitted in September 2012 and an Inspector appointed to hold the Examination. On 14 January 2014, the Inspector commenced the formal hearings which sat for 5½ days. The hearings took the form of structured discussion around a published list of matters arising from the Inspector’s scrutiny of the plan and relevant representations from the development industry, landowners, local community and private and public sector organisations.
2.2 As a result of the hearings, amendments to wording to provide further clarification and explanation of the Plan explored during the discussions were identified, together with a request from the Inspector for additional information and matters to support his consideration of the Plan in relation to a number of topics. The Inspector indicated on closing the hearings that these matters would need to be drawn together and would also need to be published for public consultation in due course.
2.3 On 31 January 2014, the Inspector issued an interim letter stating his view that the Council needed to make a modification to address his concern following the hearings that the proposed housing requirement was too low, and that the settlement strategy
1 needed to identify from within the second tier of ‘other settlements’ those more sustainable settlements where growth could be directed. The Inspector also raised as an issue that the distribution of the adjustment made in the housing distribution model relative to Longridge needed to be focused towards the remaining larger settlements or the more sustainable settlements rather than distributed across the borough.
3. RESPONSE TO INSPECTORS RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 The Inspector raised his clear concerns regarding the soundness of the plan and the need to increase the Housing requirement, refine the settlement hierarchy and address the method of treating the Longridge adjustment.
3.2 These issues are discussed in the topic paper attached to this report at Appendix 1 and which has been the subject of consideration by the Core Strategy Working Group who have been involved in the development of the paper and its conclusions. The paper has also been subject to Sustainability Appraisal (SA) process to ensure confidence in its outcomes. A copy of the SA report is available in the Members’ Room for reference.
3.3 A key change is the need to work to the higher housing requirement of 280 dwellings per year which is based upon our existing evidence base provided by the previous Housing requirement review considered by Members. The Inspector has concluded that housing and economic growth should “dovetail” and for this to genuinely occur, from the housing updates objective assessment an annual average of 280 dwellings per annum is necessary. It is therefore proposed that the plan is modified to reflect this. In progressing this consultation has been undertaken with our neighbouring authorities under the duty to cooperate and through which authorities recognised that we would need to address the Inspectors concern. Blackburn with Darwin maintain their position presented at the Hearings of objection to the higher figures.
3.4 The discussion paper at Appendix 1 sets out the analysis and conclusions in relation to the refinement of the settlement strategy. This results in 9 settlements being identified as more sustainable in development terms and a proposed split between the 9 as Tier 1 villages and the remaining 23 defined settlements being Tier 2. The Longridge adjustment is subsequently distributed to the Tier 1 villages to address the Inspectors comments. This approach has also been the subject of SA.
3.5 The resulting Modifications including changes arising during the hearings or those proposed following submission of the Core Strategy are consolidated into the table at Appendix 2. This effectively serves to draw together all the changes to be considered by the Inspector and will be submitted to him as part of the examination. The schedule will also need to be published for 6 weeks consultation. SA has been undertaken and an update on any matters arising as elements are finalised will be given at Committee.
3.6 A minor number of modifications are yet to be finalised and are awaiting input from others. These matters are points of clarification that would not be expected to change policy principles. They include the key diagram which relies upon confirmation of the settlement hierarchy, a revised monitoring section and confirmation of wording with other bodies. An update will be given at committee on any outstanding matters with any remain issues to be finalised ahead of the consultation period. In order to expedite this it is suggested that where matters remain to be finalised this is delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Housing in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chair of the Committee.
2
3.7 Subject to Members’ agreement it is programmed to commence consultation w/c 19 May and closing on Monday, 30 June. The Inspector has indicated that he wants all responses to be passed to him for his consideration it is not anticipated that the council will propose further modifications in response. Whilst the Inspector in closing the hearings stated that he expected to deal with any outstanding matters by way of the written procedures depending on the nature of the consultation response further hearing days could be scheduled if he felt it was necessary.
3.8 In addition to the modifications schedule, information generated during the course of or as a result of matters raised in the hearings, including the SA report will also be published at the request of the Inspector to enable people to have the opportunity to comment on material provided to the Examination.
3.9 On completion of the consultation and submission of responses to the Inspector if there are no further sitting days required the Inspector will produce his report to the Council and if the plan is held to be sound (subject to the modifications) the Council will move to the adoption stage. The adoption process would usually be anticipated to be complete within 2 months from receipt of the Inspector’s report.
4 RISK ASSESSMENT
4.1 The approval of this report may have the following implications:
• Resources – Members have agreed a budget to progress the Core Strategy.
• Technical, Environmental and Legal – The Council has to follow the statutory regulations in preparing the Core Strategy and is currently in the examination stage. Consultation will need to be undertaken and will follow the statutory process. Further hearing days may be required depending on matters raised in consultation.
• Political – There is significant public interest in the Core Strategy.
• Reputation – Decisions taken in connection with the Core Strategy will help demonstrate the Council’s obligations to fulfil its statutory duties and meet its objective of being a well-run Council.
• Equality & Diversity – No implications identified.
5. RECOMMENDED THAT COMMITTEE
5.1 Confirm the housing requirement to be set at 280 dwellings per annum and that the settlement hierarchy is modified in accord with the proposals set out in Appendix 2 and that the proposed change to the distribution of the Longridge adjustment to the Tier 1 villages is agreed.
5.2 Endorse the proposed modifications set out in Appendix 2 to be submitted to the Inspector and together with the relevant supporting documents to be subject to a six week consultation period.
3 5.3 In regard to those outstanding modifications referred to in paragraph 3.6 above and where no policy principles are to be amended, delegate to the Head of Regeneration and Housing in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chair of this Committee, authority to finalise text as necessary to progress the Examination.
COLIN HIRST MARSHAL SCOTT HEAD OF REGENERATION AND HOUSING CHIEF EXECUTIVE
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Examination documents (various).
For further information please ask for Colin Hirst, extension 4503.
REF: CH/CMS/P&D/08051401
4 Appendix 10: SHLAA Site Proforma
STRATEGIC HOUSING LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT 2013 UPDATE
Site Details Suggested By... Site Ref: 382 Name: Agent Submission: Simon Site Location: Land between Dilworth Lane and Higher Road Pemberton- JASP Planning Town/Village: Longridge Current Land Use: Part vacant, part grazing land Potential Capacity: 660 Neighbouring Use: Residential, Agricultural land Gross Area (Ha.): 16.5 Visual Prominance: Significant Net Area (Ha.): 16.5 In Operational No Employment Use: Green/Brown field: Greenfield
Suitability Availability Achievability Deliverability / Developability
Site Suitable: Yes Site Availability: 6 - 10 Year Is the Site Yes Is the Site No Achievable: Is the Site No Deliverable: Available: INCLUDED IN 11-15 YEAR SUPPLY Outcome of V No of Owners: 3 Viability Modeling:
Suitability Comments: PASSES ALL TESTS OF SUITABILITY Availability Comments: Site has 3 owners and is therefore unavailable however Agent states all owners have expressed intent to sell site for housing so in medium term
Achievability Comments: There is a reasonable prospect that housing will be developed on the site.
Sustainability Scoring Criteria S1. Main Development Location: 3 S12. Within Conservation Area: 5 S21. Mineral Safeguarding Area 1
S2. Previously Developed: 1 S13. Impact on Listed Building/Setting: 5 S22. Mining or Unstable Ground 5
S3. Covered by Essential Open Space: 5 S14. Impact on Scheduled Ancient 5 Monument or Setting: S4. Lead to Loss of Employment Land: 5
S5. Car Parking at Minimum Level: 5 S15. In Archaeological Hazard Area: 5
S6. Is Majority in Green Belt: 5 S16. Site Contains a TPO: 5
S7. Suitable Infrastructure: 1 S17. Nature Conservation Area: 3
S8. Can Infrastructure be Adapted: 5 S18. Development Adversely Impacts 5 on Surrounding Uses: S9. Within Landfill Consultation Zone: 3
S10. Constrained by Topography: 3 S19. Any Bad Neighbour Land Uses: 5
S11. Risk of River Flooding: 5 S20. Consultation Zone for High 5 Pressure Pipelines: S23. Other Constraints: Final Criteria 90 Score:
Has the Site been Excluded: No Reason for Exclusion: N/A Any other Comments:
Supply: INCLUDED IN 11-15 YEAR SUPPLY
3
4
2
6
B
3
4
2
6
B
5 4 2 6 B School 109.7m
Woodville
W D
D
A
O
R )
R m E u View D ( W Pendle A
O h O t
L R a W N P D O T S E R P
Spade Mill Reservoir No 1 No Reservoir Mill Spade
W
D
f e e s
D u o H
k a O Tank
5 4 2 6
FB B SD6137 Scale 1:5000 White Lion Farm Lion White Guide Post Guide Overflow
113.1m
W D
BM 113.93m BM
W D Pond (PH) Arms
2 Corporation 1 Cottages
Woodville Drain Spade Mill Reservoir No 2 No Reservoir Mill Spade
FB
C
F
m
1
9
. 0
Track
D
112.5m A
O
R
N
Depot
R
U
B
K
C
A
L B
Track Higher College Farm College
Def
S C
CCS
W
D
f e D
f e D
H R 1m
0.9
y
d
B
d
r
a W
) k c a r (T
E N A L D R A Y N A T Court Tennis 112.5m
9
6
2
5
B Lodge Hollin Hall Hollin
1
2
rd a Y n Lodge a Clifton ck T Tra
2
RT OU C TH OR LW DI
Stone 5 NE AND HIGHER ROAD LONGRIDGE Broomfield House Broomfield Sinks
1 1 2009 March
D
R
A
Y
Pond
N
A T
1
E
N
A
1 L
10
R
2 E
W
E Issues
G O
D
I
L
C
O R U R T
E
N
A
D L
A
O
R H
R
E T
H
G I R
H O
1 s 3
08 e W
L u
I s
D s
4 I
1
3
9
m
7
1
.
0
5
1 104
M B Lodge Broomhill
8 4 Higher Broomhill Higher Dilworth House Dilworth
1
0 Cottage Gardeners 2
80
2 LB 110.0m
3 Fern Hollow Fern
5
8
1 9
t 7 o
5
a
n
l
l
o i
L
c
V C
a 5
E
e
N
B
E
D
N
7 Y
0 W
D 9
9 8 A 8
O
R 3
0 6
Addison House Addison Y 8
E Sta Sub El
m
L 7 .
G 9
I 4 A 1
H
C Alston Lodge Alston
(Home for the Elderley) the for (Home 7
5 6 2 8
4
1
7
1 8 8
2
0 D
D A
OA O 3 R R
7 LEY
VAL N
O
T 5
E
1
H
V 118.6m
I 4
8 G
R
7 D
O 6
H W
O
R
B
L
L
1 1
E W
Springfield e us
H o
5 ach
7 Co
6 he 6 7 T
6
3
3 3
6
4 4
9 0 2
5 9
6 6 1
2 2 0 B 5
B
3 6
7 2 9 6
2
m 5
3
6
. B 8
2 7 4
7 3 0
5
4 1 6
a
h
1
s i n
4 r T
2 e 7 D 9
M 3 R
U 5
B CO 1 N
TO Y D
A 1
L A
5 C
8
O Court Alston
R
Alston Court Alston
1 N
y 7
O
d
T
B
El H 2
8
d
a 1
G r r z e
e
Sub Sta Sub J
a O
m H
W
7
.
m 3 E
1 3 9
1
4 N 0
A 1 5
. 1
L
9 2 4 6 R
0 2
Sta 1 E
2 2
8 4
e s
W u
o
H
M n
o t
c O
El Sub El B A House
D L
7 7
A 5 Orchard 5
5 O 5 3 1 R 4 E
1 L
T 3
3 5 d
E
l
0 e i f
k r
O a L V
I
O 6
2
T R
D
m W
1 7 8 O
4 4 2 9
R .
B 9
L
0
L
1
E
3
W 4
5 M W
3 2 3 B
6 O
1 R B 2 D
4 yright. All rights reserved. Licence No. 10001864 A B
2 3
O e g
a 5
t t N
o C
h
t
R r o w l i
D O 1
S 1 1
G T D N R
I G
A 2
R N
1 E P 4 N H
S A A L C
L E
3
T R
3
4 O 4
FC O
AL 2 6
C
2 B
0 4
1
3 7
4 1
5 5 2 1 2
2 1
E
4 s S d
5
n
4 O
a CHERRY
L l 1
3
7 3
w
6 9 C
3 1
2
0 2 e
E N
6 L
m D
d
l
5
o
7 .
e
N F I
0
2 r s
4
a eld R
u i 1 rf
q e
B ow
S L
D 9
A
m
4 1 4
l
8 r O
e
a
R
1
p F
3
6
a
1 40 R 1
h
E 4 9 C H
o t 6
G
I 1
1
H
7
a
E 1
t
2 b S 5
2 1 N
u
A S
l
L
E
TCB le
H o erd
T Ov
R O
4
4 W 3 1 1 4 2
a L
109.8m
7 I 5 1
2 4 2 l
3 D e 0 ap Ch
132.0m se
1 u 2
3 7 o 1
3 H
3
1 4 y 3
0 d 2 B d
r 2
5
1 a
1
o t
1 1 W 3 4 gh
E rlei
V e I h h
leig et R r N
8 he
1 t D
Ne
E
R 1
0
V
E
I 2
T
R
S
D
P
Y
O
1 E 5
E
4 4 4 C
L
N 1
T A
A
L 2
2 2
E N 4
1
H E
W E m
E 0
S R .
2 9
5
G 4 2
O 3 1 L 1 1 C
1 D 7 IVE
N R
1 D
A 1 E L 2 L DA W SE
O RI B 3 1 1
8 4 4
E S High
5 Trees
1 South View 14 O
2
L
5 y
1 a C
6 w
a N e E
id y W
n H Highfield
R
n
e 1 u e A
n h 3 S T D
2 e
D 8
3 6 1 2 4
0 4 Dale Head 1
6
1
8
1 1 2
Capelina 1 6
E 2 5
U
N
E 9 1 4
2 V Newhaven 5 b E 0 3 S A
Y O 7 PH
2 E
a L 1
R
4 C F 1
a
N F 5 9
O E 6 3
J
1 T 2
A L P
C 7 N
m
O
7
T
1 2 L
7
. 2 1
A 2
9 9 1
H
3 1
1 0
T a
R
U e O T
M l
D Lynne C a
N d
B 1 r
A O 0 lve
O 1 M i
L S 3
R 7 E
6
138.4m B
1
Y 5
4 2
E 0
L 3 1 1
IG 2
1
A 1 9
H LB
D
1
C A
1 0
1
O
1 1 R
5 g
n Y
i B 3
t N 5
2a r 2
1 o e R
c O 2 H S i 2
f 1
2 f T
1 5 E
O 111.91m BM
E
10 2
22 3
R
4 1
8
1
3 T
T
9
S
S 24
L
L
5
G
E 1
N
W
1 I R I 5 K
36 4
5 5
17 0 1
1 3 1
9 APE AVENUE a 14 FAIRSN
El 1 L
2 1 C
1
Y
LB 1
1 2 1 E 1 3 8
3 L 4
7
6
7 1 N
A
2 3
7
Sub Sta Sub 2 T
9 2
9 E
5 3
I V 7
3 S
R
m 1
D
2 D
.
6 L
1 E 0 I 7
1 1 F
H
3
G 3
I 2 H 11 1 8
1 2 e 1
2 2 2 al 1 5 1
l s d
5
e 7 s
r
4 a t
1 2 u r
2
a 1 le u
0
L B o
e C
h 7 Bowling Green Bowling 3
T
4 7 2 3
T 8
R 3
2
4 1
2 U 4
1
1 O 8
2 4
C 2 3 1 2 3
2 (PH)
5
3 e
L 1 h
L 7 T
I 1 Dog Inn Dog s 6
2 e
M 9 0 c h
0 1 A ir 1 4 1 S
0 1 B
5
P
1 1 2
9 L
E
Y
1
a F 8
3 O
1 1
L 2 D 11 21 1
9 3
2 1
3
3 9 Farm RT
COU 8
9 OR Sharley Fold Sharley
7 4 LL
0 E
7 PC M
2 1 1
E
3 V CK AVENUE I
PARLI 5 t R
C
k D
t o 5 c
0 i
0 r
1 1 b
ar E El
8 L
3
0 w
0
3 S
1 A
T t 2
6 2 o
Sub Sta Sub
E 2 D
4 1 1 1 2
E 3
E
3
2 D 2 S 2 9
7 R A O
7 I
T R
N 2
3 O I X R S D
1
8
E E
3 4 t o
7 N C
d
A
U l
133.5m 4 L
L 8 o 4
3 P
1 F 1
T
2 7 5
y E
e K
3 l
r
2 8 R
2 a A
h
5 M
2 S 1
4 5 1 8 8 0 2 3 9 SHLAA UPDATE 2013 SITE 382 LAND BETWEEN DILWORTH LA Do not scale from this plan Cop © Crown
2 4 1 PH
1 1 1
8
6 2
2
7 9 Eden 7 4 House
Depot
2 3
Council 5
3 g 1
1 n i 2
h y
b m re 5 c i r e a
L l u
u F q
h S C Appendix 11: Turley Housing Land Supply Analysis
Appendix 11: Review of Ribble Valley’s 5 Year Housing Supply
Introduction
1 In its most up to date monitoring report ‘Housing Land Availability Schedule’ of April 2014 (‘HLAS’), Ribble Valley Borough Council (RVBC) states that it has a committed housing supply of 2177 dwellings (net) comprising extant planning consents in the three Key Service Centre settlements and the rural parishes. It contends that it has 5.16 years supply of specific, deliverable housing sites (as at 31st March 2014).
2 This note considers the 5 year housing land supply position in the Ribble Valley. The findings are based on analysis of the Council’s HLAS (base date 31 March 2014), planning permissions granted since 1 April 2014, relevant appeal decisions, the Inspector’s position on the emerging Local Plan (Part One) and recent RVBC Planning and Development Committee Reports.
The 5 year Housing Requirement
Objectively Assessed Need
3 As section 5 of the Planning Statement confirms, there is no up-to-date development plan policy requirement in place on which to base a 5 year housing land supply assessment for RVBC. The North West Regional Strategy (NWRS) has been revoked; the housing requirements of the RVBC Districtwide Local Plan covered the period 1991-2006 (and are therefore time expired); and, the emerging RVBC Core Strategy requirement has not yet been found sound at examination.
4 Paragraphs 47 and 159 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) make clear that Local Planning Authorities are required to identify and plan for the full, objectively assessed housing needs (‘OAN’) of their area.
5 The NWRS does not present an appropriate basis for establishing the OAN for the area. It is revoked and does not form part of the Development Plan. Further, the evidence that underpinned it is significantly dated and the figure for Ribble Valley is a constrained one. Hence, the judgements in the Hunston cases, as reinforced by the Solihull case are directly relevant.
6 The Hunston Properties High Court Judgement of September 2013 upheld in the Court of Appeal found that the Inspector in that case had erred in law to apply the revoked Regional Strategy figure for assessing the 5 year requirement, which departed from the approach in the NPPF (paragraph 47) as it was a constrained figure that failed to reflect “full objectively assessed needs”. In the Court of Appeal Judgement (paragraph 25), it was stated that:
7 “I am not persuaded that the Inspector was entitled to use a housing figure derived from a revoked plan, even as a proxy for what the local plan may produce eventually”
8 The Court of Appeal Judgement (paragraph 26) further states that the inspector was:
9 “…mistaken to use a figure for housing requirements below the full objectively assessed needs figure until such time as the Local Plan process came up with a constrained figure”
10 In concluding, the Court of Appeal Judgement (paragraph 32) states:
11 “Where this inspector went wrong was to use a quantified figure for the five year housing requirement which departed from the approach in the Framework, especially paragraph 47”.
12 The Hunston judgements have had direct influence on others, for instance in the recent High Court judgement in respect of South Northamptonshire Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Barwood Land and Estates Ltd1, where Mr Justice Ouseley states
13 “In my judgement the crucial point to take from the Hunston case is how to interpret paragraph 47 (i) of the NPPF, relating to the requirement for a full objective assessment of housing needs in the housing market area to the subsequent qualification that that be done so far as is consistent with the policies in the Framework, before the Local Plan is produced, reconciling or balancing the two aims…Before that happens through the Local Plan, the full objectively assessed housing needs of the area are not subject to the constraints of policy” (paragraphs 30 - 31)
14 “…Until the full objectively assessed needs are qualified by the policies of an up to date Local Plan, they are the needs which go into balance against any NPPF policies. It is at that stage that constraints or otherwise may apply. It may be problematic in its application, but that is how paragraph 47 works” (paragraphs 32)
15 Whilst in the High Court judgement in Gallagher Homes Ltd and Lioncourt Homes Ltd v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council2 Mr Justice Hickinbottom stated (at paragraph 88):
16 ‘……a number of points are now, following Hunston, clear. Two relate to development control decision-taking:
17 - Although the first bullet point of paragraph 47 directly concerns plan-making, it is implicit that a local planning authority must ensure that it meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market, as far as consistent with the policies set out in the NPPF, even when considering development control decisions.
18 - Where there is no Local Plan, then the housing requirement for a local authority for the purposes of paragraph 47 is the full, objectively assessed need.’
19 In light of the forgoing, applying the NWRS housing target for Ribble Valley as the OAN for the area would not be a lawful application of the NPPF.
20 The RVBC Districtwide Local Plan housing requirement deals only with the period to 2006, and hence is expired and provides no basis for planning for housing beyond 2006. In any event, it was founded on a housing requirement drawn from the Lancashire Structure Plan which pre-dates the NWRS, and is clearly historic and out of date.
21 In the absence of generating an independent analysis of OAN, , the only reasonable reference point is to use the evidence underpinning and the draft policies of the emerging RVBC Local Plan (Core Strategy).
22 The PPG3 confirms that “where evidence in Local Plans has become outdated and policies in emerging plans are not yet capable of carrying sufficient weight, information provided in the latest full assessment of housing needs should be considered.”
1 Case No: CO/11301/2013; Citation references EWHC 570 (Admin) and 573 (Admin) 2 Case No: CO/17668/2013; Citation [2014] EWHC 1283
2
Emerging Core Strategy Housing Requirement and its Evidence Base
23 The RVBC Core Strategy (CS) will cover the period 2008 to 2028 and was submitted to the Secretary of State in September 2012. The Examination of the CS was then put on hold (on 9 January 2013) following initial advice from the appointed Inspector that the evidence base, in particular underpinning the CS housing policies, was not sufficiently comprehensive and up to date.
24 The ‘hold’ period was used by the Council to review and prepare an updated evidence base, including an update of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).
25 As part of this work and in order to determine a local housing requirement for the Core Strategy plan period, the Council also commissioned NLP to complete a 2013 housing requirement study for the borough.
26 The study appraised a series of economic scenarios to indicate that a housing requirement in the range 280 (net) dwellings per annum (dpa) to 559 net dpa. It commented that a housing figure lower than 280 dpa would not enable sufficient affordable housing to be provided nor meet economic growth objectives without encouraging unsustainable levels of in-commuting from neighbouring districts. In addition to the housing requirement study, the 2013 ‘Strategic Housing Market Assessment’ (SHMA), upon which the NPPF places significant emphasis to identify housing needs (paragraph 159), identifies a requirement for 404 affordable homes each year. This is significantly in excess of the proposed full housing requirement (market and affordable) of 250 per annum.
27 Notwithstanding the findings of the 2013 evidence base, the Council pursued an annual requirement of 250 net new homes per annum, 30 dwellings per annum lower than the lowest economic scenario in the housing requirement study. In October 2013, the Council formally adopted the 250 dpa figure and resolved that the Sedgefield method should be applied when calculating housing land supply. These factors were taken forward by the Council and included in Modifications to the Core Strategy.
28 In November 2013, the Inspector published the list of matters and confirmed the dates for the hearings in January 2014. The hearings closed formally on 22 January 2014.
29 On 31 January 2014, the Inspector issued an interim letter to provide clear direction regarding the soundness of the plan and the need to increase the housing requirement, refine the settlement hierarchy and address the method of treating the Longridge adjustment.
30 In summary, the Inspector concluded that housing and economic growth should “dovetail” and for this to genuinely occur an annual average of 280 dwellings per annum is necessary.
31 In light of this interim letter, the Council has undertaken further work and is proposing to further modify the CS to take account of the Inspector’s comments, and to more directly reflect the NLP report, which in itself was intended to identify the OAN for the area. As a direct result of the Inspector’s proposed modifications, the Council held a special Planning and Development
3 Paragraph: 031 Reference ID: 3-031-20140306
3
Committee meeting on the 8 May 2014. At this meeting, the Council’s resolved to increase the overall housing requirement to 5,600 units over the plan period (i.e. a minimum of 280 units per year from 2008-2028).
32 The distribution of housing based on an annual requirement of 280 units per annum over the plan period is set out at Table 1 below. This illustrates that residual number for Longridge (following consents up to 31 March 2014) has increased from 520 dwellings to 629 dwellings over the plan period.
Table 11.1 Proposed distribution of housing development in the Ribble Valley
33 This revised requirement (and the wider post-hearing modifications to the CS) is to be the subject of a consultation period in the 6 period between 23rd May and 7th July 2014. Subject to the outcome of this consultation, the Inspector may convene further hearings to discuss the modifications and the consultations responses.
34 The housing requirement in the emerging CS is therefore subject to potential further change, and may not be found sound as presently proposed. However, it is considered, now that it is proposed to be modified to more accurately reflect the assessment undertaken by NLP, the best reflection of an OAN for the area. There is no more up-to-date or tested OAN figure for the area. Therefore, we conclude that this represents the most appropriate basis on which to base the 5 year housing supply requirement at present.
35 This matter has been specifically considered in recent appeals within the area. The use of RVBC’s emerging housing requirement was discussed at the appeal relating to a site on Henthorn Road in Clitheroe4. Disregarding the NWRS given its revoked status and in light of the evidence presented to him, the Inspector commented at that time that the appropriate housing requirement figure to be used in determining the appeal would be ‘not less than 200 dwellings per annum’ although the Inspector proceeded to note that the evidence suggested that the actual housing target could be between 330 to 350 dwellings per annum. The use of the emerging Core Strategy housing
4 Appeal reference: APP/T2350/A/11/2161186
4
requirement (250 dpa at the time) was also applied by the Secretary of State5 dealing with the appeal relating to the land to the South West of Barrow and west of Whalley Road, Barrow.
36 The recent appeal decision relating to the application for the provision of up to 190 units on land at Barrow6 also confirms the Council’s use of emerging housing supply figure (250 dpa), based on findings of the NLP Report.
37 In each of these appeals, the Council accepted the use of the emerging CS housing requirement (as it stood at each particular time) in defining the 5 year housing requirement, rather than the use of the NWRS requirement, the RVBC Districtwide Local Plan figure, or some other figure. Further, in (cite Council SHLAA docs or AMRs) it has been accepted to use the emerging CS housing requirement as the basis for the 5 year housing supply calculation.
38 In the April 2014 HLAS the Council undertakes its analysis on the basis of the 250dpa figure, contending this is appropriate, but also presents analysis based on the 280dpa figure now proposed by the Council to be included in the CS. Reliance on the former is clearly inappropriate given the Council’s proposed modifications to the CS (which it must be accepting is the OAN for the area) and would be inconsistent both with various appeal decisions referred to above, and the Council’s own stance on this over recent years.
Summary on the OAN
39 Based on legal judgement on the application and interpretation of the NPPF, the 5 year supply requirement must be a reflection of the OAN, and the NWRS cannot be deemed to represent the OAN. The Council has accepted over recent years that the emerging CS housing requirement figure is the appropriate basis for calculating the 5 year supply position, and this has equally been accepted by Inspectors and the Secretary of State. That figure is now proposed to be (on annual average) 280dpa.
40 Given that this is now more directly aligned with the NLP evidence base which seeks to identify an OAN for the area, this is deemed to be the appropriate basis (in the absence of any independent OAN) to establish the 5 year housing requirement.
Dealing with Shortfall / Buffer
41 Paragraph 47 of the Framework advocates the front-loading of housing delivery. Hence, it has been held in numerous Secretary of State and Inspector decisions on appeals across the country, and locally (for instance Land to the South West of Barrow and west of Whalley Road, Barrow7) that any shortfall in delivery from previous years should be added to the 5 year supply, rather than being spread over the plan period. This is commonly referred to as the ‘Sedgefield’ approach.
42 The use of the Sedgefield approach was agreed by the RVBC’s Planning and Development Committee on 10th October 2013.
5 Appeal reference: APP/T2350/A/13/2190088
6 Appeal reference: APP/T2350/A/13/2197091 7 Appeal Reference: APP/T2350/A/13/2190088
5
43 This approach was also recently endorsed by the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)8, which states that:
44 ‘Local planning authorities should aim to deal with any undersupply within the first 5 years of the plan period where possible.’
45 For these reasons, this note subscribes to the Sedgefield method throughout.
46 Table 11.2 overleaf shows dwelling completions in recent years in the Ribble Valley against the housing requirement (now proposed by the Council in the CS) target of 280 dwellings per annum.
47 RVBC has not achieved its annual housing requirement since 2006 and in the 6 years since 2008, only 675 dwellings have been completed. Against a requirement of 1680 dwellings, this leaves a shortfall of 945 dwellings
48 Further, the persistent under-delivery against targets clearly warrants the application of a 20% buffer in accordance with paragraph 47 of the NPPF. This position has been accepted by RVBC in each of the HLASs that have been published since October 2012 and the previously referenced appeals at Barrow. Table 11.2 therefore applies the 20% buffer, before adding in the backlog since 2008 (the beginning of the Plan period) on the basis of the Sedgefield approach.
Core Strategy 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/2012 2012/13 2013/14 Total Period
Housing Requirement 280 280 280 280 280 280 1680
Completions 75 89 69 147 172 183 735
Annual Difference -205 -191 -211 -133 -108 -97 -945 (Shortfall)
5 Year Requirement at 280 Dwellings Per Annum 1400
5 Year Requirement at 280 Dwellings Per Annum, Plus 20% NPPF 1470
5 Year Residual (Sedgefield) Requirement Plus NPPF 20% 2625 or 525 (1400 + 20% + 945) dwellings per annum
Table 11.2 Turley Assessment: Completions and Residual (Sedgefield) Requirement
8 Paragraph: 036; Reference ID: 3-036-20140306
6
Summary on the 5 Year Housing Requirement 49 Based on the figure of 280dpa, which represents the most recent and relevant OAN figure (and one accepted by the Council in its emerging Core Strategy), the Sedgefield approach to dealing with the shortfall since 2008, and the application of a 20% buffer, the relevant 5 year housing requirement (1 April 20014 – 31 March 2019) is 2,625 dwellings or 525 dwellings per annum. It is important to note that this figure is consistent with the Council’s evaluation of the 5 year requirement if one applies the 280dpa, as set out in the April 2014 HLAS.
Housing Supply against requirement for 280 dwellings per annum9
50 The Council’s HLAS (March 2014) identifies a supply of 2711 dwellings. Compared to the housing requirement set out in Table 11.2 above, this equates to:
5.61 years’ supply against the residual annual requirement, plus a 5% NPPF buffer, of 483 dwellings; or
5.16 years’ supply against the residual annual requirement, plus a 20% NPPF buffer, of 525 dwellings.
51 This position is disputed by Taylor Wimpey and the following sections provide an appraisal which identifies an optimistic but realisable housing supply position for RVBC.
52 In calculating the RVBC’s 5 year supply the Council has applied a standard (unexplained and unjustified) lead-in and built rate assumption for the two large sites at Higher Standen Farm (Clitheroe) and Barrow. The assumptions set out in the HLAS are set out at Table 11.3:
Total RVBC 5 To be Comments Reference Site capacity year delivered allowance beyond 5
years
3/2012/0630 Land to South-West of 504 300 204 Outline planning permission Barrow and West of granted on appeal 20 Whalley Road, Barrow February 2014.
3/2012/0942 Land at Higher Standen 1,040 300 740 Outline planning permission Farm, Clitheroe granted on 17 April 2014 Table 11.3 Large Sites – Assumed 5 year delivery (April 2014 – March 2019)
53 The HLAS assumes that with the exception of the sites and Higher Standen Farm and Barrow all other sites with planning permission will be fully delivered within the first 5 years. It is to be noted that the Standen permission is presently the subject of a legal challenge thus delivery from that site must at present be questionable.
9 Based on Inspectors written response following the Examinations of the Core Strategy (February 2014)
7
54 The HLAS does not identify assumed build rates nor provide justification for the such rates or clarify if an allowance has been made to accommodate a lead in time, and what that may be. The Council has, therefore, identified a 5 year delivery figure for the two large sites, and indeed all sites within planning permission, without any transparent explanation, clear foundation or justification. This is contrary to the guidance contained within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) as well as the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) good practice guidance upon identifying an objectively assessed housing requirement (‘Ten key principles for owning your housing number - finding your objectively assessed needs’). Both acknowledge the importance of continuously monitoring housing delivery and use of accurate assumptions.
55 As such, it cannot be determined whether the Council’s allowance for the delivery of 300 units on each of the two large sites, or all of the consented units on all other sites, within the 5 year period, is in fact reasonable or justified.
56 One can only assume the Council is applying a standardised set of assumptions, albeit those are not disclosed. However, even it was transparent as to how this approach has been applied, this approach does not give consideration to individual site circumstances or the issues that may arise on a site by site basis.
57 In the absence of either a transparent and justified standardised approach, or any site specific explanation of the particular circumstances that apply, it is necessary to appraise the likely lead in and build rates based on practical experience and nationally-sourced evidence.
58 With regard to build rates, as a general position, and based on day to day experience of delivering sites of different scale across the country, the applicants consider that delivery rates of 25-30 dwellings per annum (2-2.5 dwellings per month) per developer are appropriate and realistic. On sites where two developers are active, this is likely to increase to 50 units per annum. This broadly aligns with the latest HBF figures10.
59 On sites with a capacity of less than 250 units, it is likely that a single housebuilder would deliver the scheme in isolation. Only on sites capable of delivering more than 250 units would a house builder be likely to build out in conjunction with another developer.
60 Only on large strategic sites with capacity to deliver more than 750 units would three developers potentially work together. On these sites, the expected annual delivery would be approximately 75 dwellings per annum. However, there are very few examples in the market of such large scale sites and as such the situation could in fact be much lower. In the absence of any clear evidence to the contrary, it is more reasonable to assume only two developers (or two developer outlets) would operate on those sites at any one time. We have not had sight of any evidence to confirm this has or would occur in RVBC, therefore, it is considered that a maximum of 50 dwellings could be delivered from any one site per annum.
61 In calculating a deliverable supply position, RVBC has not formulated lead in time assumptions for sites identified within the HLAS. As a result the Council have underestimated the inherent delays in the planning process (e.g. the approval of reserved matters and discharges of planning conditions) as well as the time taken to implement development (e.g. complete land purchase, prepare detailed designs for the infrastructure, mobilise the statutory utilities and commence development).
10 House Building: March Quarter 2014, England, DCLG (15 May 2014)
8
62 In order to address the shortfalls in the Council’s approach, Taylor Wimpey’s standard lead-in times (those considered reasonable for standardised application) have been applied to the HLAS sites comprising of 10 units or more. These standard lead in times have been applied to the supply of sites from the date of the planning permission or subsequent reserved matters consent.
63 Table 11.4 summarises the Taylor Wimpey’s standardised build out rate and lead in time assumptions.
Build Rates
Site Size/Number of Dwellings
Site Status Less than 50 50 to 200 200 plus homes Notes homes homes
Lead in N/A N/A N/a time Under Build rate applied to Construction Build residual capacity rate (per 15 dwgs 30 dwgs 50 dwgs annum)
Lead in Lead in time to 1 year 1.5 year 2 year Full Planning time allow for Permission/ infrastructure Build Reserved provision and rate (per Matters 15 dwgs 30 dwgs 50 dwgs construction start annum) up
Lead in Lead in time to 1.5 years 2 years 2.5 years time allow for full permission/reserve Outline Build d matters, Planning rate (per infrastructure Permission annum) 15 dwgs 30 dwgs 50 dwgs provision and construction start up
Lead in Lead in time to 2.5 years 3 years 3.5 years time allow for planning permission, Sites without Build infrastructure permission rate (per provision and annum) 15 dwgs 30 dwgs 50 dwgs construction start up
Table 11.4 Taylor Wimpey Build Rates and Lead in Times
64 Application of these standardised assumptions is considered to be a methodical approach to evaluating potential delivery from the identified supply. It could be enhanced by the consideration of site-specific circumstances, but in any event represents a more transparent and robust basis on which to consider the 5 year delivery from the sites identified in the HLAS.
9
65 We now turn to each category of supply considered by the HLAS.
Sites Subject to a Section 106 Agreement
66 As an initial observation, it is questioned whether the Council can reasonably rely upon a non- committed, potential supply that does not yet benefit from planning permission and include it within the 5 year supply.
67 The starting point for judgements on the deliverability of sites is the Framework11 which states:
68 “To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable within a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within 5 years, for example that they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for this type of units or have long term phasing plans”.
69 Support for this view is drawn advice contained within the Planning Practice Guidance and the recent the Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Ltd vs. Wiltshire Council case 12.
70 To be robust however, this assessment has reviewed each of the applications within this category that the Council has identified within the HLAS.
71 The HLAS identifies sites with a total of 1206 units with a resolution to grant permission. The large majority of these units (1040 dwellings) form part of the Strategic Site at Higher Standen Farm, which received formal grant of outline planning permission on 17 April 2014.
72 With specific regard to the consented scheme at Higher Standen Farm, the Council approximate that a total of 300 units will be delivered in the next 5 years. Turley is aware that the outline planning permission is currently the subject of a judicial review (relating to the adequacy of the proposed access arrangements) and this will ultimately delay submission of Reserved Matters and the implementation of the consent over the next 5 years. The Council’s position is also contested because the site was brought forward independently by the land owner and is not aligned to a house builder or developer. Hence, a marketing and disposal process is still to be progressed.
73 In accordance with the assumptions set out at Table 11.4, it is not expected that the planning and ownership position to be sufficiently advanced to enable a start on the development before 2016. From that point, we consider that a reasonable expectation of unfettered delivery rate would be, 50 units per annum, assuming a build rate of 25 units per developer outlet, and two outlets on site. Applying this robust approach concludes that 125 units (of the 300 included in HLAS) can reasonably be included as part of the 5 year supply. It is important to note that this approach assumes that significant infrastructure issues associated with a site of this scale and character are capable of being addressed in time to allow for unfettered release of development in response to the market.
74 To be robust we have also reviewed the likelihood of the remaining agreements being signed. Here it is worth noting that for 4 (of the 5) committee resolutions (to grant planning permission) specify the Section 106 agreement must be completed within 3 or 6 months.
11 Footnote 11 to Paragraph 12
10
75 On this basis, it would be reasonable to remove the 57 units identified at Clitheroe Hospital, where a resolution was made in 2012 and approval has not been granted to date. Notwithstanding the protracted lead in period, it is considered that a scheme for 57 units could reasonable be delivered in the next 5 years, therefore, the approved scheme at Clitheroe Hospital has been retained within the Turley assessment of 5 year supply.
76 The Turley assessment (enclosed at Appendix i) confirms that each of the remaining resolutions to grant planning permission (5 in total) have been within the last 6 months. On this basis and the assumption that it is reasonable to include this source of supply within the 5 year supply albeit there can be no certainty that every section 106 will be signed. With the exception of Higher Standen Farm, no further dwellings are proposed to be discounted from the 5 year supply.
Sites with Planning Permission (not started)
77 In appraising RVBC’s 5 year land supply, Turley has reviewed the identified supply position from extant planning permissions set out in the HLAS schedules and undertaken a review of the sites of 0.4 hectares and above and the sites for affordable housing. More specifically, the appraisal comprised review of the planning permission details to establish whether the permitted form of development can appropriately contribute to the housing land supply position and to ensure that ‘qualifying’ permissions remain extant.
78 The HLAS identifies 1907 units with planning permission, but this does not take account of the grant of outline planning permission for the land at Higher Standen Farm.
79 Assessing the deliverability sites with planning permission is not an exact science but it is important that assumptions relating to development rates (i.e. number built per site/sales outlet per annum are in line with current realistic completion rates) and that the development industry agree with them. In addition it is important to allow long enough lead in times between sites getting permission and delivering houses.
80 The schemes with outline consent comprise approximately 67% of the total supply. For the purposes of assessing the land supply position, it is important to note that the Council have not specified any lead in times (i.e. the time taken between a planning permission being granted and the housing units being completed). Rather, the Council have simply assumed (with the exception of the large sites at Higher Standen Farm and Barrow) that these permissions will and can be delivered in full within the next five years.
81 As explained at paragraphs 1.47-157, large sites with outline planning permission require a lead in period because subsequent approvals (i.e. reserved matters and discharge of condition) are required before development can commence on site. In some instances, the lead in process will inevitably take significantly longer then the anticipated at the time when outline consent is granted (i.e. where significant infrastructure is required). The lead in assumptions set out at Table 11.4 provide a reliable basis, and even these represent a positive position in a high proportion of cases. In applying this approach, the Trajectory 2 identifies that 392 units have been discounted from this element of the supply.
82 Contrary to the Council’s approach, affordable units are included as part of the overall supply because the main source of supply for new affordable homes is planning obligations levied on open market developments. In such cases, it is difficult to accurately apportion a specific delivery
11
rate for the affordable housing element of a proposed housing scheme. It is, therefore, considered more robust to apply a holistic method to the delivery of the sites with planning permission.
83 The HLAS indicates that 410 dwellings will be delivered from sites over 0.4 hectares with full planning permission or reserved matters approval over the 5 year period. A number of these permissions (including the land at Mitton Road, Whalley) have been obtained by developers and / or national house builders. As a generality, it is accepted that all of the sites identified in the HLAS trajectory are deliverable and are capable of making a contribution to the 5 year supply position.
84 With regard to the small sites, it is relevant to note that four of the schemes identified by the Council have been in the planning system for a long period. These permissions are listed at Table 11.5 overleaf:
Date of RVBC 5 Comments LPA Reference Site permission year allowance
3/2010/0807 The Knolle, 12/08/11 2 units Erection of dwellings Whalley Rd, Wilpshire
3/2010/0934 Black Bull Hotel, 16/12/11 7 units Erection of 5 dwellings including 2 Ribchester affordable units
3/2012/0155 Victoria Street 25/05/12 9 units Renewal of 3/2008/0766P for Garage, demolition of commercial building Clitheroe and erection of 3 storey building forming apartments
3/2013/0306 Pack Horse 24/07/13 9 units Renewal of 3/2010/0180 for Garage, demolition of commercial premises Mellor Brook and erection of apartments Table 11.5 Samples of small sites with planning permission nearing expiry
85 Furthermore the site at Rabeck House (Sawley) has been subject to a full planning permission (LPA reference 3/2010/0205) for 2 units since August 2010; and, the land off Dixon Road (Longridge) has been subject to an outline planning consent for 9 units since March 2011. These consents have now expired, therefore, a further 9 units have been removed from the 5 year supply.
86 In light of these findings, adjusted trajectories have been prepared on this basis (attached at Appendix ii). These schedules demonstrate where adjustments need to be made to the Council’s assumptions.
87 The results of the review show that the following discounts have been identified:
Large sites13: 342 units (from 2,262 units)
Small sites: 9 units (from 228 units)
13 Over 0.4ha and 10 units
12
Sites under Construction (including conversions and change of use)
88 An assessment of the 359 units under construction has been undertaken as part of the analysis and, whilst it has been assumed that the supply under construction will come forward, it is noted that several of the permissions date back to 2010 or earlier. In light of this evidence, there is a significant doubt as to whether a number of the permissions will be further implemented given that they were permitted more than 2 years ago.
89 For conversions and change of use, a more detailed assessment has been undertaken, using a sample of sites as being representative of the overall supply identified in the HLAS. Ribble Valley Building Control has been contacted to provide information on the status of the sites listed in the HLAS.
90 Of the schemes listed, six are older than 2 years and some are up to 10 years old. For example, the HLAS includes sites where planning permission has been renewed and the site has still not been commenced. These permissions are listed at table 11.6 below:
RVBC 5 year allowance Date of LPA Reference Site command
3/2013/0626 & 3/2007/0504 Woodfield Barn, Stoneyhurst 02/08/2017 2 New Barn, Whalley Road, 3/2013/0625 & 3/2007/0505 02/08/2007 3 Stoneyhurst The Old School Cottage, Forest 3/997/0571 & 3/2002/0511 27/02/2007 1 Beeach Farm, Bolton by Boland
Table 11.6 Small sites where planning permission has been renewed and work has yet to commence
91 Consequently, if the completion of these sites is for whatever reason no longer viable in the short term, it must be questioned whether it is reasonable to retain them in the five year supply. Within the HLAS, the Council remove 22 sites without justification or verification. Notwithstanding this, the Council do not apply a slippage to the ‘Sites under Construction’. This is considered further at Paragraph 1.84 below.
92 In summary, the findings of analysis illustrate that market conditions may be impacting the delivery of supply appealing to local and specialist building contractors and people undertaking self-build projects, particularly in respect of barn and farm building conversions.
93 In light of the issues identified with the delivery of the permissions set out above, 11 units have been removed from the supply.
Slippage
94 On the basis of the assessment undertaken to date, it is clear that further scrutiny would most likely confirm a greater number of discounts than the Council anticipates in justification of its use of a 10% slippage allowance. The potential average discount from the small number of sites sampled on behalf of the applicant across the small sites supply, indicates an average slippage of 30%.
13
95 Whilst a greater slippage allowance could therefore be applied, the applicant has nevertheless used a 10% factor in accordance with the Council’s methodology. This clearly represents the best case scenario because the actual supply from smaller sites could be considerably less than the Council anticipates. This should be taken into account in consideration of the Council’s 5 year housing land supply position.
96 As set out at paragraph 1.80, the Council have yet to review historic delivery patterns to provide a specific estimate of the slippage for schemes under construction (based on past trends). The Council discount 22 units without reasoning within the HLAS, but a slippage allowance is not applied to the sites where development has commenced on site.
97 Given the persistent under-delivery of housing in the Borough, the approach set out within the HLAS is not considered to be a robust. In order to address this flaw in the Council’s methodology, a 10% slippage allowance has been applied to the ‘Sites under Construction’. It is important to note that the slippage allowance takes account of the 22 units excluded by Council within the HLAS but no reason or justification is provided for removing these units. Adopting a robust approach 22 units have been removed from the 10% slippage allowance for the ‘Sites under Construction. This approach results in the discount of 9 additional units from the supply.
Results
98 Applying the robust set of assumptions set out in the preceding sections, it is entirely reasonable to discount 551 units from the Council’s identified 5 year supply, which leads to an assessed housing supply of 2167 dwellings.
99 This equates to a 4.00 years’ supply against the residual annual requirement, including 20% NPPF buffer, of 525 dwellings.
100 Table 11.7 below shows the applicant’s calculation of deliverable supply for the period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2019 compared to the Council’s figures in the HLAS:
Category RVBC Assessment Turley Assessment Difference
Sites Subject to s1061 466 291 - 175
Sites with Planning 2290 1939 - 351 Permission (not started)2
Less units not - 143 - 143 0 deliverable
Sites under + 359 + 348 - 11 Construction
Less 10% slippage - 261 - 270 - 9
Total Supply 2711 2167 - 546
Table 11.7 RVBC and Adjusted Housing Supply Comparison
14
1 Includes HLAS ‘Sites with subject to 106’; ’Less dwellings on large sites deliverable beyond 5 year period.
2 Includes HLAS ‘Sites with Planning Permission’; Affordable units note started; Less dwellings on large sites deliverable
beyond 5 year period.
15 Turley Housing Trajectory 1 – Sites awaiting s.106 agreements
Condition LPA Estimate Requiring Remaining to be Turley Estimate Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Units Site Area Site Reference Site Location Source Of Supply S.106 to be Developed (5yr Count) removed Comments (Ha) Signed within (2014-2019) (2014-2019) 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 from supply <6 Months
3/2012/0785 Clitheroe Hospital, Chatburn Road, Clitheroe Outline Application 2.07ha Yes 57 57 30 27 Outline application for 57 units. Approved at committee 6 December 2012, subject to s.106 agreement being signed. Trajectory has been calculated on 2 year lead in time and delivery of 30 dwellings per annum. 3/2013/0161 Strawberry Field, Main Street, Gisburn Outline Application 0.5ha Yes 11 11 8 3 Outline application for 11 units (7 market, 4 affordable). Approved at committee 7 November 2013 subject to s.106 agreement being signed. Trajectory has been calculated on 18 month lead in time with delivery of 15 dwellings per annum. 3/2013/0737 Hansons Garden Centre, Whalley Road, Barrow Outline Application 1.9ha Yes 43 43 8 15 15 5 Outline application for 43 units (30 market, 13 affordable). Approved at committee 13 February 2014 subject to s.106 agreement being signed. Trajectory has been calculated on 18 month lead in time with delivery of 15 dwellings per annum. 3/2013/0981 Land at Chatburn Road, Clitheroe Outline Application 1.82ha Yes 23 23 8 15 Outline application for 23 units (14 market, 6 affordable, 3 close care apartments). Approved at committee 13 February 2014 subject to s.106 agreement being signed. Trajectory has been calculated on 18 month lead in time with delivery of 15 dwellings per annum. 3/2013/0691 Elmridge Farm, Elmridge Lane, Chipping Full Application 4.10ha No 4 4 4 Full application for conversion of 3 barns to 4 market units. Application approved at committee 13 February 2014 subject to s.106 agreement being signed. Trajectory has been calculated on 18 month lead in time with delivery of 15 dwellings per annum. 3/2013/0169 Pendle Garage, Clitheore Road, Barrow Full Application 0.71ha N/A 28 28 15 13 Full application for 28 affordable units. Approved at committee 7 April 2014 subject to s.106 agreement being signed. Trajectory has been calculated on 1 year lead in time with delivery of 15 dwellings per annum.
3/2012/0942 Land at Higher Standen Farm, Clitheroe Outline Consent 51.4 N/A 300 125 25 50 50 175 (April 2014) Outline for 1040 units (728 market, 312 affordable). Approved at Committee. Over estimation of delivery supply within 5 years due to assumed development programme: Approximately 2.5 years to secure Reserved Matters, infrastructure provision and construction start up and then 50dpa (believed to be shared between two developers).This would leave a residue at 5 years. Approximately 175 units of the total (300) included as part of the 5 year supply will be delivered in years 6-10
TOTAL 466 291 0 43 101 92 55 175
CHANGE -175
*Pendle Garage (LPA ref: 3/2013/0169) planning permission issued on 7 April 2014. ** Land at Higher Standen Farm (LPA ref: 3/2012/0942) planning permission issued on 7 April 2014.
Housing Trajectory 2 – Sites over 0.4Ha and comprising 10 units or more
LPA Estimate Supply Turley Estimate Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Units Site Area Site Reference Site Location Source Of Supply (2014-2019) Supply 2014–15 2015 – 16 2016–17 2017–18 2018 – 19 removed Comments (Ha) (2014-2019) from supply
3/2012/0158 Site 2, Barrow Brook Business Village, Barrow Outline Consent 4.30 104 104 30 30 30 14 Outline for 104 units (73 market, 31 affordable). (November 2012) Approved at Appeal (2176977) on 30 November 2012. Application for reserved matters has yet to be submitted, therefore, the trajectory has been adjusted to take account of 12 month lead in time and delivery of 30 dwellings per annum (dpa).
3/2012/0630 Land to the South West of Barrow & Outline Consent 18.26 300 125 25 50 50 175 Outline for 504 units (353 market, 151 affordable). Approved at Appeal (2190088). West of Whalley Road, Barrow (February 2014) Decision date: 20 February 2014 Over estimation of delivery supply within 5 years due to assumed development programme: Adopting an optimistic approach it will take 2.5 years to secure Reserved Matters, infrastructure provision and construction start up and then 50dpa (believed to be shared between two developers). This would leave a residue at 5 years. Approximately 175 units of the Council’s estimated 5-year supply will be delivered in years 6-10.
3/2013/0747 Wilkinson Haulage Yard & Adjacent Land, Site with FPP 2.35 55 55 15 30 10 Full planning application consented for 55 dwellings (41 market, 14 affordable). Whalley Road, Billington (March 2014) Decision date: 28 March 2014. The trajectory has been adjusted to take account of 18 month lead in time and delivery of 30 dpa.
3/2012/0014 Primrose, Woone Lane, Clitheroe Numerous Apps 1.04 74 74 15 30 29 Original outline application consented for maximum of 162 dwellings. 78 dwellings delivered under RM application 3/2012/0394 in 2012. Recent RM application for 34 dwellings approved. In total, 42 market and 32 affordable dwellings remain to be delivered on site. 3/2013/0035 Land off Henthorn Road, Clitheroe Outline Consent 8.27 198 198 50 50 50 48 Outline for 270 units (189 market, 81 affordable). Approved at Appeal (2161186). (April 2013) Reserved Matters approval issued on 16 April 2013 and two national house builders have commenced development on site. The Council’s HLAS makes allowance for 198, which includes the affordable housing provision. 3/2013/0711 Land off Henthorn Road, Clitheroe Outline Consent 4.97 140 90 30 30 30 50 Outline for 140 units (98 market, 42 affordable). Approved at Committee. (February 2014) Over estimation of delivery supply within 5 years due to assumed development programme: Approximately 2 years to secure Reserved Matters, infrastructure provision and construction start up and then 30dpa (single developer). This would leave a residue at 5 years. Approximately 50 market dwellings will be delivered in years 6-10.
3/2012/0420 Land North & West of Littlemoor, Clitheroe Outline Consent 1.75 49 49 15 15 15 4 Outline application 3/2012/0179 consented for 49 dwellings (34 market, 15 affordable). (June 2013) Decision date: 12 June 2013. Application for reserved maters has yet to be submitted, therefore, the trajectory has been adjusted to take account of 18 month lead in time from date of planning permission and delivery of 15 dpa.
3/2011/0541 Land off Milton Avenue, Clitheroe Outline Consent 1.23 50 50 8 15 15 12 Outline for 50 units (35 market, 15 affordable). Approved at Appeal (2181354). Application (February 2014) for reserved maters has yet to be submitted, therefore, the trajectory has been adjusted to take account of 18 month lead in time and delivery of 15 dpa.
3/2011/1064 Land south west of Primrose Village, Clitheroe Outline Consent 2.48 140 135 15 30 30 30 30 5 Outline for 140 units (98 market, 42 affordable). Approved at Committee 20 November (November 2012) 2012, but application for reserved matters has yet to be submitted. The trajectory has been adjusted to take account of 12 month lead in time delivery of 30 dpa.
3/2011/1071 Land at Chapel Hill, Longridge Site with FPP 3.40 52 52 15 30 7 Full permission for 52 units (36 market, 16 affordable) and conversion of former barn. (November 2012) Decision date: 07 November 2012 Assumed deliverable. The trajectory has been adjusted to take account of 18 month lead in time from date of planning permission and delivery of 30 dpa. 3/2012/0782 Water Meadows, Longridge Reserved 2.35 32 32 15 15 2 Original outline application 3/2011/0316 consented for m aximum 58 dwellings. Matters/Outline 26 dwellings delivered under RM application 3/2013/0307 in 2013. Remaining 32 dwellings Consent under construction on site. (RM September 2013) 3/2012/0179 Land at Accrington Road, Whalley Outline Consent 2.97 77 77 30 30 17 Outline application 3/2012/0179 consented for maximum 77 dwellings (54 market, 23 (June 2013) affordable). Decision date: 25 June 2013. No RM application submitted yet. The trajectory has been adjusted to take account of 12 month lead in time and delivery of 30 dpa. Housing Trajectory 2 – Sites over 0.4Ha and comprising 10 units or more
LPA Estimate Supply Turley Estimate Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Units Site Area Site Reference Site Location Source Of Supply (2014-2019) Supply 2014–15 2015 – 16 2016–17 2017–18 2018 – 19 removed Comments (Ha) (2014-2019) from supply
3/2013/0137 & Land East of Clitheroe Road (Lawsonsteads), Outline Consent 5.80 260 150 30 30 30 30 30 110 Outline for 260 units (182 market, 78 affordable). Approved at Committee. 3/2012/0087 Whalley (October 2013) Decision date: 16 October 2013. Phase 1 Reserved Matters Application for 54 units (38 market, 16 affordable) was approved at committee on 16 April 2014. Over estimation of delivery supply within 5 years due to assumed development programme: Approximately 2 years to secure Reserved Matters, infrastructure provision and construction start up and then 30dpa (delivered by single developer and in phased manner). This would leave a residue at 5 years. Approximately 110 dwellings will be delivered in years 6-10.
3/2012/0687 Land at Mitton Road, Whalley Site with FPP 6.20 137 135 15 30 30 30 30 2 (June 2013) Full planning permission granted for 137 units (96 market, 41 affordable). Approved at Appeal (2188887) on 27 June 2013 and deemed deliverable. The trajectory has been adjusted to take account of 6 month lead in time and delivery of 30 dpa
3/2010/0820 Land North of Riddings Lane, Whalley Outline Consent 2.12 80 80 30 30 20 Outline for 80 units (56 market, 24 affordable). Outline approved at Appeal (2149940) on 16 (September 2011) September 2011 and no reserved matters have come forward. 3 months to submit reserved matters application before expiry of Outline Permission.
3/2012/0623 Land at 23-25 Old Row, Barrow Outline Consent 1.13 23 23 15 8 Outline for 23 units (16 market, 7 affordable). Approved at committee 27 February 2013. No (February 2013) RM application submitted as of yet. The trajectory has been adjusted to take account of 12 month lead in time and delivery of 15 dpa.
3/2011/0247 Chapel Close, Kingfisher Cresent, Heron Mews & Reserved Matters/ 1.88 14 14 14 Reserved matters for 54 units (38 market, 16 affordable). Approved at committee 9 Mallard Row, Clitheroe Outline Consent November 2012. Development on site is already underway meaning no lead in time and a (RM November build rate of 15 dpa. 2012) 3/2012/0014 Land adjacent to Greenfield Avenue, Clitheroe Outline Consent 1.37 30 30 15 15 Outline for 30 units (22 market, 8 affordable). Approved at committee 14 November 2013. (November 2013) RM application not yet submitted. The trajectory has been adjusted to take account of 12 month lead in time and a build rate of 15 dpa.
3/2012/0497 Strawberry Fields, Main Street, Gisburn Outline Consent 0.87 21 21 15 6 Outline for 21 units (14 market and 7 affordable). Approved at committee 1 November 2013. (November 2013) RM application not yet submitted. The trajectory has been adjusted to take account of 12 month lead in time and a build rate of 15 dpa.
3/2012/0964 Land to the north of Whalley Road, Hurst Green Site with FPP 2.44 30 30 15 15 Full planning permission for 30 units (21 market, 9 affordable). Approved at committee 24 (March 2014) March 2014. The trajectory has been adjusted to take account of 12 month lead in time and a build rate of 15 dpa
3/2013/0782 Spout Farm, Preston Road, Longridge Outline Consent 1.78 32 32 8 15 9 Outline for 32 units (22 market, 10 affordable). Approved at committee 16 January 2014. RM (January 2014) application not yet submitted. The trajectory has been adjusted to take account of 18 month lead in time and a build rate of 15 dpa.
3/2013/0851 Meadow View & Whins House, Whins Lane, Read Site with FPP 1.07 16 16 15 1 Full planning permission for 16 units (11 market, 5 affordable). Approved at committee 27 (January 2014) January 2014. Council schedule should be adjusted to take account of planning permission for 16 units. The trajectory has been adjusted to take account of 12 month lead in time and a build rate of 15 dpa 3/2012/0738 Land off Dale View, Billington Outline Consent 0.40 10 10 10 (November 2013) Outline for 10 units (7 market, 3 affordable). Approved at committee 1 November 2013. RM application not yet submitted. The trajectory has been adjusted to take account of 18 month lead in time from date of planning permission and a build rate of 15 dpa.
3/2011/0025 Land off Chatburn Old Road, Chatburn Outline Consent 0.97 10 10 10 (February 2012) Outline for 10 units (7 market, 3 affordable). Approved at committee 1 November 2013. RM application not yet submitted. The trajectory has been adjusted to take account of 18 month lead in time from date of planning permission and a build rate of 15 dpa.
3/2010/0550* Former Barkers Garden Centre, Whalley Road, Outline Consent 0.76 0 0 Clitheroe (September 2011) Outline for 32 units (23 market, 9 affordable). Approved at committee 28 September 2011. RM application not yet submitted. Application not considered viable or deliverable by the Local Authority.
3/2011/0482 Brown Leave Grove, Copster Green Reserved Matters/ 0.63 0 0 Outline Consent Reserved matters for 18 units (13 market and 5 affordable). Approved at committee 8 (RM November November 2012. Site under construction no further delivery in next 5 year period. 2012) Housing Trajectory 2 – Sites over 0.4Ha and comprising 10 units or more
LPA Estimate Supply Turley Estimate Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Units Site Area Site Reference Site Location Source Of Supply (2014-2019) Supply 2014–15 2015 – 16 2016–17 2017–18 2018 – 19 removed Comments (Ha) (2014-2019) from supply
3/2013/0113 Petre Wood Crescent, Petre Wood Drive, Langho Site with FPP 0.67 0 0 (July 2013) Full planning permission for 25 units (25 affordable). Approved at committee 18 July 2013. Site under construction no further delivery in next 5 year period.
TOTAL 1934 1592 154 431 444 363 200 342
CHANGE - 342
*Turley is aware of a further application (LPA ref: 3/2014/0071) on the site of the Former Barkers Garden Centre for the erection of a foodstore (Class A1), which is due to be determined at committee on 29 May 2014. Appendix 12: Affordable Housing Statement
Affordable Housing Statement
Planning Policy
1.1 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF seeks to ensure the delivery of affordable housing in new housing schemes, in accordance with objectively assessed needs.
1.2 The Council’s own non-statutory policy paper, ‘Addressing Housing Need in Ribble Valley’ (January 2012), updates the 2009 ‘Affordable Housing: Memorandum of Understanding’, and seeks to address the affordability of housing in the Borough and meeting the housing needs of older people.
1.3 The Affordable Housing Memorandum states that everyone in Ribble Valley should have the opportunity of a decent and affordable home. The Council is committed to helping local people who cannot afford to buy or rent homes on the open market, and a key corporate ambition is to match the supply of homes in an area with its identified housing needs. A key priority of the Sustainable Community Strategy to 2013, Corporate Plan and Housing Strategy is therefore to maximise the supply of affordable housing.
1.4 The non-statutory policy paper sets out the Council’s policy and threshold for providing affordable housing in new developments. In Clitheroe and Longridge, developments of 10 or more dwellings are required to provide 30% affordable housing on site. Reduced provision to a minimum of 20% will only be considered where this is clearly supported by viability evidence.
1.5 The document also sets out the requirements for meeting the needs of older people in the Ribble Valley, given the ageing population which is projected to increase by 49% in the next 15 years. This means that for developments of 30 or more units, 15% of the units must be provided for the elderly and of that 15%, a minimum of half of the units (7.5% of a total scheme) must be made affordable and included within the affordable offer of 30%. The remaining elderly accommodation could be sold at market value.
1.6 The drafting of Policy H3 of the Council’s emerging Core Strategy is consistent with the requirements of ‘Addressing Housing Need in Ribble Valley’ policy paper. While the emerging Core Strategy has not yet been found sound, the evidence base is nevertheless instructive in terms of the ‘direction of travel’ of emerging strategic policy in the Borough and the minimum quantum of affordable housing that is required.
Proposed affordable housing scheme
1.7 In accordance with the Council’s policy, the proposed affordable housing scheme would deliver 30% affordable housing, including elderly accommodation.
Tenure
1.8 It is proposed that the precise tenure of the affordable housing units will be agreed with the local authority during the determination of the application and confirmed through a S.106 Agreement. Conclusion
1.9 The proposed affordable housing scheme would deliver 30% affordable housing, including elderly accommodation, in accordance with planning policy.
1.10 The proposed tenures would be agreed with the Local Authority and would be secured through an appropriately worded Section 106 Agreement.
Turley 1 New York Street Manchester M1 4HD
T 0161 233 7676