Appeal Decision Hearing held on 14 November 2017 Site visit made on 15 November 2017 by Michael Boniface MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 20th November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/P3040/W/17/3178343 Land North of Rempstone Road, East Leake, Nottinghamshire The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. The appeal is made by N & B Wright (Farming) against the decision of Rushcliffe Borough Council. The application Ref 16/01881/OUT, dated 21 July 2016, was refused by notice dated 31 March 2017. The development proposed is up to 235 dwellings, primary school, infrastructure, green space, associated surface water attenuation and landscaping. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for up to 235 dwellings, primary school, infrastructure, green space, associated surface water attenuation and landscaping at Land North of Rempstone Road, East Leake, Nottinghamshire in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 16/01881/OUT, dated 21 July 2016, subject to the conditions contained in the attached Schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. The application is submitted in outline with details of the proposed access to be considered. Matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are reserved for subsequent consideration. 3. At the beginning of the Hearing, a signed S106 agreement was submitted securing a financial contribution towards secondary school provision, amongst other things. The Council confirmed that this overcame its objection set out in its third reason for refusal, so far as it relates to secondary school provision. 4. The submitted Statement of Common Ground between the parties establishes that the Council can currently demonstrate a deliverable housing land supply of around 3.43 years. As a five year housing land supply cannot be demonstrated, the parties agree that relevant policies for the supply of housing should be considered out of date, including those within the East Leake Neighbourhood Plan (2015) (NP). Under these circumstances, the tilted balance in favour of granting planning permission is engaged in accordance with paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). I have considered the appeal on this basis. 5. I have considered the Parish Council’s view that the NP should not be considered out of date, having regard to the Written Ministerial Statement https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/P3040/W/17/3178343 (WMS) of 2016 dealing with Neighbourhood Planning but the circumstances under which exemptions apply to the above position are clearly set out. The NP does not allocate sites for development, albeit that this was not considered necessary at the time, and so the WMS has no effect in this case. Main Issues 6. The main issues are whether the site is in a suitable location for residential development having regard to the development plan; the effect on the character and appearance of the area, including landscape and visual impact; whether future residents would be overly reliant on the use of private vehicles, with particular regard to the connectivity of the site with the village centre; and whether suitable provision is made for primary education. Reasons Location 7. Policy 3 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy (2014) (CS) sets out the spatial strategy for the area involving a policy of urban concentration, primarily around the main built up area of Nottingham and then the Key Settlements identified for growth. One of the Key Settlements is East Leake, which is expected to accommodate a minimum of 400 homes in or adjoining the village. 8. The number of homes granted planning permission in East Leake far exceeds this figure (more than double) but the 400 dwelling target is expressed as a minimum number and there is nothing in the policy that prohibits a larger number being delivered. That said, the CS sets out the distribution seen to be appropriate across the Borough and I heard that this was informed by an analysis of the number of dwellings each settlement can reasonably be expected to sustain, though the supporting evidence is not before me in this appeal. The CS makes provision for the number of homes necessary across the Borough, which is not disputed, and such a large concentration at East Leake is a divergence from the Council’s strategy. 9. The weight to be attached to this policy conflict must, however, be established in the light of the significant deficit in housing delivery in the Borough. Clearly, the CS has not been effective in delivering the necessary housing to date and the Council’s anticipated trajectory, set out in Policy 3, expects delivery to rise significantly from next year. This strategy is predicated on the allocated Sustainable Urban Extensions around Nottingham, and three other large sites, delivering a large proportion of the requirement. This has not occurred to date and the Council recognises that there have been delays in bringing all but one of these sites forward. This is a position set out within the emerging Local Plan Part 2 (emerging LP). 10. The Council has sought to be proactive in bringing these sites forward and the steps taken to address the issue are well rehearsed in an appeal decision from last year in Aslockton1. Since this time, the Council has continued its efforts to bring these strategic development sites forward and this is recognised in the Planning Improvement Peer Challenge Final Report (February 2017). A Strategic Sites Delivery Officer has also been appointed to further support delivery. 1 APP/P3040/W/16/3143126 – Land to the north of Abbey Lane, Aslockton https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/P3040/W/17/3178343 11. All of this is encouraging, as are the details of additional dwellings granted planning permission and progress in delivery on the ground. However, the Council did not update its housing land supply position for the appeal and there is, therefore, no firm evidence before me of any progress in relation to the Council’s housing land supply position since the previous appeal. Nor is it demonstrated how the trajectory set out in Policy 3 will be achieved over the coming years. 12. In contrast to the Aslockton appeal decision, the appeal site does not represent a significant departure from the spatial strategy of the CS, because East Leake is a Key Settlement where development is to be directed after the main urban area around Nottingham. The Council confirmed that there are no sites available around Nottingham, other than the three allocated urban extensions, which have not delivered the anticipated number of dwellings to date. The emerging LP identifies further sites in an attempt to address the shortfall but the vast majority of these are located in Green Belt and so the prospects of these being delivered in the short term, prior to the adoption of the emerging LP, are very limited. The emerging LP has not been examined and is not expected to be adopted until at least the end of 2018. 13. In light of the above, I am not persuaded that the Council’s efforts will significantly alter the delivery position in the short term. The Framework seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing and the need for housing in the Borough exists now. I do not consider it appropriate to further delay delivery on the basis that the minimum number of dwellings in East Leake, a Key Settlement, have been exceeded. The village is expected to grow, recognition of its relative sustainability. Therefore, contrary to the position in the Aslockton appeal, I attach little weight to the conflict with Policy 3 in terms of housing numbers as I do not consider the development is at odds with, or would undermine, the overall strategy of the CS in the absence of a five year housing land supply. Character and appearance 14. The site comprises arable land adjacent to a large residential development site that is currently under construction. Land levels slope downwards from Rempstone Road towards the village and a public right of way (PROW) runs north-south across the site and onwards towards the village centre. A newly relocated micro-propagation business stands adjacent, along with another commercial unit close to Loughborough Road. These, coupled with the large scale development underway to the west, have a marked visual influence on the otherwise rural character of the site. 15. The application is accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Appraisal (July 2016) (LVA) which has been undertaken in accordance with best practice guidance in GLVIA32. The appraisal recognises that there would be a fundamental change from undeveloped land to a residential development but that the effects would be localised and limited in their extent. The existing hedgerows and trees within the site would largely be retained though some small sections would need to be removed to facilitate access to the site. The retained hedgerows would be strengthened and reinforced, along with 2 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition, Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013) https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/P3040/W/17/3178343 additional tree planting across the site, notably a thick landscape buffer along the boundary with Rempstone Road. 16. The LVA concludes that the effects on the wider landscape area would be minor adverse-negligible, particularly as new landscaping within the site matures. The council accepted during the hearing that its concerns related to the landscape and visual effects in the immediate vicinity of the site and that there were no wider implications.