Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 17, 18 and 24 September 2013 Site visits made on 16 and 19 September 2013 1 by Jean Russell MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 27 November 2013 Appeal Ref: APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449 Land at Widham Farm/Widham Grove, Station Road, Purton, Swindon, Wiltshire • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the 1990 Act) against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr C R Cornell against Wiltshire Council. • The application, ref: N/11/02574/OUT, is dated 28 July 2011. • The development proposed is described as ‘…up to 50 dwellings, access and associated works following demolition of two dwellings (Kilmayne and Perrying, Station Road)’. • This decision supersedes that issued on 5 October 2012. That decision on the appeal was quashed by order of the High Court. 2 FORMAL DECISION 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The outline application was made with details of the access arrangements for the proposed development. The matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale were reserved for future consideration. 3. Revised plans were submitted during the appeal process. The drawings before me, as agreed in the Statement of Common Ground (SCG) dated August 2013, are listed as Plans A-I at the end of this decision. A proposed bus turning area within the site is still shown on the illustrative housing plan (1579/sk04/I) but it would not be required because the local bus service now continues through Purton. 4. After the appeal was made, the Council considered the proposed development and recommended that planning permission would have been refused for eight reasons. Following negotiation and on the basis of the revised plans, the Council withdrew its objections relating to protected species, living conditions and site servicing. The appellant submitted a Unilateral Undertaking (UU) to the inquiry under s106 of the 1990 Act, in order to address the final putative reason for refusal. 5. The parties have cited other appeal decisions relating to proposals for housing on the following sites in Wiltshire: Marden Farm; Sandpit Lane; Park Road; Brynard’s Hill; Oxford Road; Silver Street and White Horse Way; Ridgeway Farm (determined by the Secretary of State); Bureau West; Marsh Road; and Fairdown Avenue. Full appeal references are set out in Appendix 2 to this decision. 1 The site visit made on 16 September was unaccompanied. 2 Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Ltd v SSCLG and Wiltshire Council [2013] EWHC 597 (Admin) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision: APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449 6. I have been referred to an appeal (ref: APP/Y3940/A/12/2183526) in relation to land south of Filands in Wiltshire. A decision by the Inspector was issued in error on 18 March 2013, after the Secretary of State had decided to recover the appeal for his own determination. A judicial review of the process was dismissed in the High Court. There is no currently decision on the Filands case but I have had regard to the Inspector’s deliberations. 7. I am also aware of recent permissions for housing development at Moredon Bridge and Tadpole Farm, which are within Swindon but a few miles of the appeal site. The Site and Planning History 8. The appeal site comprises approximately 3ha of grazing land, bounded by Station Road to the east; Widham Grove and Locks Lane to the north; open land to the west; and Glevum Close and Pear Tree Close to the south. Widham Farmhouse is inset within the site; it and Widham Grove are grade II listed buildings. 9. It is proposed to construct 35 market houses, 15 affordable homes and some 1.14ha of open space on the appeal site, with two ponds providing ecological mitigation and surface water management functions. The development would be accessed from Station Road. 10. The appeal site is part of a larger holding which I shall describe as the ‘wider site’ and it adjoins a railway line to the north. A proposal to construct 136 dwellings on the wider site was dismissed at appeal (ref: APP/Y3940/A/09/2107373) on 30 November 2009 – the ‘first Widham Farm’ decision. 11. The appellant contends, with reference to Arun DC v SSCLG and Green Lodge Homes LLP [2013] EWHC 190 (Admin) that it would be an error in law for me to have regard to the former decision on the current appeal which was quashed in the High Court. The Council notes that just one ground of challenge was successful 3 – and that Arun concerned whether a second Inspector should rather than could have regard to a quashed decision. Either way, I am not bound by the former decision. It was made in different circumstances and quashed in its entirety. I have had regard to all evidence submitted in relation to this appeal, including submissions to the 2012 inquiry, insofar as they were available to me and still relevant – but I have attached no weight to the quashed decision. 12. I heard that the appellant has submitted a further planning application for housing development on the appeal site. This application is not within my remit. Main Issues 13. I consider that the main issues are: 1) whether the proposed development is acceptable in principle, with regard to Government guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and provisions of the adopted and emerging development plan; 2) whether there is a five year supply of housing land in Wiltshire; 3) whether the proposed development would be justified by other material considerations, with regard to local needs for market and affordable housing and whether the site is a sustainable location for new housing; and 4) whether a grant of planning permission would be premature to the adoption of and would prejudice the emerging development plan. 3 The Inspector declined to consider two appeal decisions submitted after the inquiry although it was within his discretion do so. He failed to give reasons for not considering the decisions, and they were significant in that they might have caused him to reach a different conclusion had he taken them into account. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision: APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449 Planning Policy National Planning Guidance 14. Paragraph 14 of the Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-making, this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. Where the plan is absent or silent or relevant policies are out of date, permission should be granted unless 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. Paragraph 17 of the Framework sets out core planning principles. Paragraphs 18- 219 constitute what sustainable development means in practice. The Development Plan 15. The development plan comprises the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 (LP) adopted in June 2006. LP Policy H3 permits residential development within Framework (or settlement) Boundaries as defined on the Proposals Map. Proposals should be for small scale or limited development in all except named villages that include Purton. 16. LP Policy H4 only permits new dwellings in the countryside outside of Framework Boundaries where they would be connected with the essential needs of a rural- based enterprise or a replacement for an existing dwelling. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the Framework, I attach weight to these and other relevant LP policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. The Emerging Development Plan 17. The emerging Wiltshire Core Strategy (EWCS), comprising the Pre-Submission Document and a Schedule of Proposed Changes, was submitted for Examination in Public (EiP) in July 2012. Following focussed consultation, EiP hearings took place from May to July 2013 . In August 2013, the Council issued EXAM/34 – a hearing session tracked changes version of the Pre-Submission Document. This is the latest version of the EWCS; it formed the basis of discussion at the inquiry and it is also the version cited in this decision. 18. The Schedule of Proposed Modifications has been subject to consultation since the EiP. The proposed changes seek to resolve objections and ensure compliance with the Framework. The Inspector’s report is expected in late November 2013. If the EWCS is considered to be sound, it would be adopted in early 2014. 19. EWCS Core Policy 1 (CP1) identifies settlements where sustainable development will take place – comprising Principal Settlements, Market Towns, Local Service Centres (LSC), and Large and Small Villages. LSCs are smaller towns and larger villages which serve a surrounding rural hinterland and will provide for modest levels of development. Development in Large Villages – which have a limited range of employment, services and facilities – will be limited to that needed to help meet the housing needs of settlements. 20. CP2 requires the provision of at least 37,000 homes between 2006 and 2026, distributed between Housing Market Areas (HMAs) comprised of Community Areas. The appeal site is within the North and West Wiltshire HMA and the Royal Wootton Basset and Cricklade Community Area (RWBCCA). CP2 indicates that within the limits of development defined on the Proposals Map, there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development at settlements identified in CP1. Development which does not accord with the delivery strategy is deemed unsustainable and will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Development will be permitted www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision: APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449 outside the defined limits to development (DLD) only in accordance with plan policies or under specified circumstances.