BROADLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 APPEAL BY: SCC Norwich LLP and the Thorpe and Felthorpe Trust against the refusal of Broadland District Council to grant planning permission for Erection of up to 300 New Homes and the Creation of a New Community Woodland Park (Outline) at Racecourse Plantations, Plumstead Road East, Thorpe St Andrew, Norwich, NR7 9LW PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: APP/K2610/W/17/3188235 LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY REFERENCE: 20161896 Charles Andrew Judson rebuttal of Mr Dominic Lawson’s Proof of Evidence 15th May 2018 1.1. This rebuttal responds to the proofs of evidence of Mr Dominic Lawson submitted on behalf of SCC Norwich LLP and the Thorpe and Felthorpe Trust (“the appellants”). 1.2. It should be read alongside my proof of evidence dated April 2018. I have not sought to rebut every point with which I disagree. The fact that I do not expressly rebut a point made by Mr Dominic Lawson should not be taken as indicating that I accept it. 1.3. The rebuttal deals with the following issues: o The relevance of policies in the development plan o The delivery of ecological benefits claimed for the CWP 1.4. The focus of the Proof of Evidence of Mr Dominic Lawson is with specific reference to the compliance of the appeal proposal with the development plan, the material considerations that apply to the appeal proposal and the overall planning balance. Where Mr Lawson addresses housing land supply, my colleague Mr Paul Harris provides the Council’s rebuttal on this issue. The relevance of policies in the development plan JCS Policy 12 1.5. In paragraphs 117 to 124 of Mr Lawson’s proof of evidence he identifies policy 12 of the Joint Core Strategy as a relevant policy to the appeal proposal, and that the appeal proposal complies with all elements of Policy 12 and that the Council has not alleged that the appeal proposal is contrary to Policy 12. Whilst this policy was referred to in the Council’s delegated report, it is not included in the Council’s statement of case, proof of evidence or included in the list of relevant policies in the statement of common ground. This policy relates to “The remainder of the Norwich urban area, including the fringe parishes” and in my opinion does not apply to proposals in the Growth Triangle (in which the site is located), the more relevant policy being policy 10 of the JCS, the objectives of which are carried forward in the GT AAP. However, if the Inspector were to find JCS policy 12 to be relevant in the determination of this appeal then, contrary to the conclusions of Mr Lawson, I find that the proposals conflict with this policy. 1.6. Policy 12 states that green infrastructure and links between currently fragmented habitats and to the rural fringe will be protected, maintained and enhanced and includes a list of ways in which this could be achieved. This list includes (point 2) the re-establishment of heathland habitat in north and north-east to link through to Mousehold. Whilst the proposal includes the re-creation of heathland habitat within the appeal site and blue land, the evidence presented by Dr David White at paragraphs 8.8-8.14 of his proof of evidence identifies why this is not appropriate in the appeal site and blue land, particularly by reference to the value of the woodland to Barbastelle bats which are of greater ecological value in the context of the north east of Norwich than heathland and the challenges of heathland re-establishment. Mr Lawson at paragraph 123 emphasises that the proposal would include further tree planting to demonstrate compliance with point 6, neglecting to mention that the appeal proposals would also result in the requirement for significant tree removals resulting in a net loss of woodland across the appeal site and blue land. 1.7. The evidence of Dr David White makes clear that the proposal will fragment and adversely impact upon ecology and habitat, and in my opinion this demonstrates that the objectives of policy 12 of the JCS (albeit they apply within the urban area and do not apply to the appeal site) are not met by the proposals. DM DPD Policy GC2 1.8. At paragraph 133 Mr Lawson states that policy GC2 does not set an absolute prohibition on development outside of the settlement limits. Whilst I agree that this is correct, in my opinion the emphasis in policy GC2 is to focus new development within settlement limits as stated within the policy and highlighted in the supporting text to this policy at paragraph 2.13 of the DM DPD. This emphasis appears not to have been considered by Mr Lawson, and does not support his interpretation of GC2. In my opinion it is clear that the proposals do not accord with GC2 whether or not the general considerations policy, GC1, allows for permission to be given in the same way as paragraph 14 of the NPPF. 1.9. Paragraph 5 of the appeal decision APP/K2610/W/17/3186686, attached to this rebuttal as appendix 2, states that on the basis that the site was outside of the settlement limit the proposal would not accord with policy GC2 and is therefore contrary to the Development Plan. This confirms that Mr Lawson’s interpretation that policy GC1 is a specific policy which provides a mechanism to comply with GC2 despite the location outside of a settlement limit is incorrect. 1.10. While referring to GC2 I would like to deal with a separate point arising from an incorrect reference to it within my proof of evidence. I have stated at paragraph 9.5 that “On this basis the tilted balance of paragraph 14 of the NPPF and DM DPD policy GC1 is triggered in accordance with paragraph 49 of the NPPF and policy GC2 of the DM DPD” (emphasis added). GC2 is not a policy for the supply of housing (confirmed in my proof of evidence at paragraph 8.10) and has no role in triggering the tilted balance. Reference to GC2 in the sentence quoted above is incorrect: the phrase “and policy GC2 of the DM DPD” should be removed. GT AAP Policy GT2 1.11. Mr Lawson states at paragraph 166, under the heading of Policy GT2 of the GT AAP, that the Council agrees that the appeal proposals would enable the delivery of a functional Green Infrastructure network and refers to the Council’s delegated report as evidence of this. However, as established in my rebuttal to Mr Williams’ proof or evidence, the correct interpretation of GI in relation to policy GT2 relates to a much more narrow definition (relating to habitat and biodiversity connectivity) than the multifunctional definition used in the delegated report where reference is made to the development providing improvements to connectivity (in terms of public access) through the site. Consequently, notwithstanding the reference in the delegated report to the delivery of a functional Green Infrastructure network, I do not agree that the proposal provides the delivery of a functional GI network in the context of policy GT2 and this is evident in the reasons for refusal, statement of case and my proof of evidence. DM DPD Policy EN3 1.12. Mr Lawson states at paragraph 146 that the appeal proposal would comply with policy EN3 of the DM DPD and that the Council does not allege otherwise. Policy EN3 has 3 requirements: o To maximise opportunities for the creation of a well-managed network of wildlife habitats. o To provide at least 4ha of informal open space and 0.16ha of allotments per 1000 population. o To make adequate arrangements for the management and maintenance of green infrastructure. 1.13. Notwithstanding the fundamental concerns of the Council regarding the impact of the development on the ecological value of the site and the delivery of GI corridors as a result of the residential development, should the appeal proposals be found to be acceptable I am of the opinion that the proposal would comply with the EN3 requirements within the area of residential development given the areas of open space and allotments in the Open Space and Recreation Strategy Dwg 16836-TLP-01 (amended by Revision A dated 20/03/2017). The delivery and maintenance of this open space within the residential development would be secured through a section 106 agreement. 1.14. The proposal does however propose to provide a Community Woodland Park, outside of these EN3 policy requirements, which I do have concerns regarding the delivery and management of. As the CWP is provided outside of the EN3 requirements these concerns do not amount to a conflict with EN3 but a more general concern regarding the ability to deliver the ecological mitigation or even the landscape works that are proposed within the CWP in the medium to long term. The delivery of ecological benefits claimed for the CWP 1.15. The Council state at paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 of the Statement of Case that it does not agree with the appellants’ claims for the Community Woodland Park in terms of the lack of certainty over the delivery and claimed management regime but that the proposals lacked sufficient detail to make a meaningful appraisal. Notwithstanding these concerns the appellants’ proof of evidence provides no further certainty on the delivery and management of the CWP other than to confirm that it would be secured by section 106 agreement and with reference to CD 1.14, CD 1.42, CD 1.43, CD1.44 and CD 1.47 which were documents submitted with the application.