APPEAL
REFERENCES
:
APP/H1840/A/13/2199085
&
APP/H1840/A/13/2199426
TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78.
APPEAL BY BARBERRY DROITWICH LTD & PERSIMMON HOMES LTD &
PROWTING PROJECTS LTD
LAND NORTH OF PULLEY LANE AND NEWLAND LANE, NEWLAND,
DROITWICH SPA, WORCESTERSHIRE
PROOF OF EVIDENCE (ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING) ON BEHALF OF
SOGOS
BY: STEPHEN STONEY BA (Hons), MRTPI - TECHNICAL DIRECTOR,
WARDELL ARMSTRONG LLP.
Wardell Armstrong
Sir Henry Doulton House, Forge Lane, Etruria, Stoke-on-Trent, ST1 5BD, United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)845 111 7777 Facsimile: +44 (0)845 111 8888 www.wardell-armstrong.com
DATE
ISSUED:
17
January 2014
JOB
NUMBER:
ST.13787.
REPORT
NUMBER:
POE.1
APPEAL
REFERENCES
:
APP/H1840/A/13/2199085
&
APP/H1840/A/13/2199426
TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78.
PROOF
OF EVIDENCE
STEPHEN
STONEY
BA
(PLANNING)
(Hons),
ON
MRTPI
BEHALF
-
OF
TECHNICAL
SOGOS
BY:
DIRECTOR,
WARDELL ARMSTRONG LLP.
This report has been prepared by Wardell Armstrong LLP with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, within
the terms of the Contract with the Client. The report is confidential to the Client and Wardell Armstrong
LLP accepts no responsibility of whatever nature to third parties to whom this report may be made known.
No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written approval of Wardell Armstrong LLP.
Wardell Armstrong is the trading name of Wardell Armstrong LLP, Registered in England No. OC307138.
Registered office: Sir Henry Doulton House, Forge Lane, Etruria, Stoke-on-Trent, ST1 5BD, United Kingdom
UK Offices: Stoke-on-Trent, Birmingham, Cardiff, Carlisle, Edinburgh, Greater Manchester, London, Newcastle upon Tyne,
Penryn, Sheffield, Truro, West Bromwich. International Offices: Almaty, Moscow
ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES
LAND AND PROPERTY
MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING
MINERAL ESTATES AND QUARRYING
WASTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Appeals
APP/H1840/A/13/2199085
&
APP/H1840/A/13/2199426
Proof of Evidence for SOGOS on Environmental Planning
CONTENTS
1
RELEVANT QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ........................................ 1
2
SCOPE OF EVIDENCE ............................................................................ 2
3
THE PROPOSALS .................................................................................. 3
4
MATTER 1: THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT .... 4
5
MATTER 2: THE EMERGING SOUTH WEST WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN ........................................................................................................ 7
6
MATTER 4: THE EFFECT ON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE
AREA..............10
7
CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 101
ST12463/J02 CDC1
November 2011
Appeals
APP/H1840/A/13/2199085
&
APP/H1840/A/13/2199426
Proof of Evidence for SOGOS on Environmental Planning
1
RELEVANT QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
1.1
My name is Stephen Martin Stoney. I hold a degree in Urban & Regional
Planning and am a corporate member of the Royal Town Planning
Institute. I have over 30 years’ experience in planning including working
for four local authorities in development control, and am currently
Technical Director at regeneration consultancy Wardell Armstrong LLP
based in Stoke-on-Trent. My current duties include advising a range of
clients in both the public and private sector on planning, environmental
and regeneration matters. I have undertaken planning appeals for the
public and private sectors, and interest groups.
1.2
The evidence which I have prepared and provide for the appeals
APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 & APP/H1840/A/13/2199426 in this proof of
evidence is I believe true and has been prepared and is given in
accordance with the guidance of my professional institution, the Royal
Town Planning Institute. I confirm that the opinions expressed are my
true and professional opinions.
1.3
I have been instructed by SOGOS, an unincorporated community group
from the Droitwich Spa area which was formed to promote sustainable
development in the town.
1.4
Before accepting the instruction to present the environmental planning
case I made myself familiar with the nature of the appeal proposals, the
sites and surroundings and the terms of the decision of Wychavon District
Council. After discussion with my co-consultant Mr Pettitt following his
assessment I was satisfied I could properly support the case against the
proposals for SOGOS.
1.5
For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Pettitt will provide evidence on matters of
traffic, transport and infrastructure.
1.6
I confirm that my duty as an expert witness overrides my duty to those
instructing me and will give my evidence impartially and objectively.
ST13787
January 2014
Page 1
Appeals
APP/H1840/A/13/2199085
&
APP/H1840/A/13/2199426
Proof of Evidence for SOGOS on Environmental Planning
2
SCOPE OF EVIDENCE
2.1
My
evidence
is
prepared
on
behalf
of
SOGOS
and
deals
with
Environmental Planning matters.
2.2
Attached to this proof are four letters from members of SOGOS who wish
these to be considered as representations to the appeal rather than being
presented individually as personal statements, and are complimentary to
matters promoted in my evidence.
2.3
The attached letters are from:

E. S. Hill & Sons

M.B. Skan

T. Calcutt

S. P. Sparrow
2.4
They are at Appendix A.
2.5
The scope of my evidence is directed towards Matters 1, 2 and 4 of the
identified 7 main matters for consideration. I do not propose to set out all
of the relevant development plan policies or sections of the NPPF as these
are set out in the statements of case of the council and the appellants.
2.6
Acting for SOGOS I have cross-referenced certain core documents but not
appended them in that they are not a Rule 6 Party and all documents
have been referenced elsewhere.
ST13787
January 2014
Page 2
Appeals
APP/H1840/A/13/2199085
&
APP/H1840/A/13/2199426
Proof of Evidence for SOGOS on Environmental Planning
3
THE PROPOSALS
3.1
The appeal sites and proposed developments are adequately defined in
the statements of case, and are:

Appeal A – Barberry Droitwich Ltd in respect of land North of Pulley
Lane
and
Newland
Lane,
south
of
Primsland
:
APP/H1840/AS/13/2199085

Appeal B – Persimmon Homes Ltd and Prowting Projects Ltd in
respect of land North of Newlands Lane : APP/H1840/A/13/2199426
ST13787
January 2014
Page 3
Appeals
APP/H1840/A/13/2199085
&
APP/H1840/A/13/2199426
Proof of Evidence for SOGOS on Environmental Planning
4
MATTER
1:
THE
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
AND
SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
4.1
The appellant contends that Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan does not take
proper account of the growth aspirations of the NPPF and therefore carries
little weight.
4.2
I strongly disagree. In that respect surely it is necessary to use extant
policy to judge whether any adverse impact on landscape would be so
damaging that it would not be offset by the development’s benefits..
4.3
In recognising the requirement ‘to boost significantly the supply of
housing’ (para 47) the NPPF explains that proposals should be considered
in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development
(para 49). In terms of paras 49 and 14 of the NPPF it is my view that
inconsistency and timeliness should remain with the decision maker.
4.4
The approach taken by the Local Plan Policy ENV1 requires development
proposals to safeguard, restore or enhance the natural and built
environment in which they sit is in my opinion consistent with the NPPF’s
approach of seeking positive improvements in environmental quality (para
9) and conserving and enhancing the natural environment (para 17).
4.5
I do not agree with the appellant’s contention that the Development Plan
is out of date because they consider it is time expired. Para 215 of the
NPPF explains that the degree of consistency is paramount, not the age of
the policies or the plan period they were originally framed to cover. This
in my view determines the weight to be applied.
4.6
I see no justification for significantly reducing the weight carried by the
Local Plan policy context to these appeals.
4.7
Policy GD1 ‘Location Strategy for new Development’ is clearly concerned
about where development takes place rather than how much. The
introductory statement at 2.3.1 confirms that its purpose is to ensure the
broad location of development is consistent with national objectives and
can be reasonably accommodated. Again, I consider this policy of similar
validity in weight terms to ENV1 through the same reasoning.
ST13787
January 2014
Page 4
Appeals
APP/H1840/A/13/2199085
&
APP/H1840/A/13/2199426
Proof of Evidence for SOGOS on Environmental Planning
4.8
It is my opinion that neither of the appeal proposals is in accordance with
the provisions of the extant Local Plan, in particular Policy GD1 and I am
professionally most convinced by Ms Illman’s manner of dealing with
Policy ENV1 on behalf of the Council than any other interpretation.
4.9
It is accepted that the planning process involves balancing competing
considerations in decision making, and it is a question of weighing all
relevant material considerations in the balance in order to determine
suitability or otherwise.
4.10
It is therefore required to consider whether material considerations
indicate whether a decision should be made other than in accordance with
the Development Plan; most notably whether the appeal proposals would
deliver sustainable development as prescribed in the NPPF.
4.11
I accept that there is a positive social and economic dimension in
providing housing in Droitwich Spa, although the same interpretation can
be given to any significant additional housing in any town. I consider the
most important matter is that of environmental acceptability, where I
consider there is an overall negative impact.
4.12
The simple fact of the case is that there is significant loss of land that
currently constitutes open countryside which is identified as being within a
Special Landscape Character. The NPPF (para 113) promotes a criteria
based approach. Development on the scale proposed in this sensitive
location in my opinion contravenes the NPPF objective of conserving the
natural environment.
4.13
The appeal sites comprise land which is currently farmed, and in this
respect the letter in Appendix 1 from E.S. Hill & Sons should be taken in
to consideration, in particular their reference to the appeal proposals and
their adverse economic circumstances to farming.
4.14
I have already indicated that in my opinion the economic and social
benefits
are
not
significant,
and
the
environmental
matters
of
consideration are balanced negatively. The NPPF clearly sets out the core
planning principles to be considered, with the first saying that planning
should ‘... empower local people to shape their surroundings’.
ST13787
January 2014
Page 5
Appeals
APP/H1840/A/13/2199085
&
APP/H1840/A/13/2199426
Proof of Evidence for SOGOS on Environmental Planning
4.15
The selected letters in Appendix 1 set a context for much wider strong
local opposition to the appeal proposals as they are received as genuinely
adversely affecting the levels of amenity they currently enjoy. The letters
from Mr Skan and Ms Calcutt for example illustrate the levels to which this
area of current open countryside is valued for walking, cycling, horse
riding, dog walking and generally benefitting from using this area in an
uninterrupted fashion away from but on the fringe of the town. It has a
strong
rural
feel
and
is
clearly
highly
valued.
These
views
are
complimentary to those of the Ramblers Association of Worcestershire.
4.16
Neither appeal site is in my consideration in a sustainable location in the
context of transportation considerations. Mr Pettitt has looked at this
aspect in a wider context, including deliverability of proposals to seek to
meet
suitable
pedestrian
catchment.
The
council
have
questioned
deliverability. My reasoning from a planning context is that the shortest
walking
route
for
the
nearest
residents
to
the
town
centre
is
approximately 1.2 miles, and at furthest 1.5 miles with inclines involved;
which in my opinion is beyond recommended walkable catchments and
the distance where walking has potential for replacing short car trips. This
to my mind brings question to a significant aspect of sustainability.
4.17
I do not consider the bus access through the Appeal A site is acceptable,
and to the contrary feel it is ‘forcing’ a solution toward a site(s) which
cannot be considered as a sustainable location in that the appeal sites are
naturally configured with natural topography from my perspective to face
outwards toward the south and away from the town. Appeal B offers no
known promotion of sustainable transport. This leads me to the view that
the proposals do not satisfy Paras 37 and 38 of the NPPF as important
sustainability considerations.
4.18
There is clearly strong feeling, as reflected in the letter of Mr Sparrow at
Appendix 1, that there will be material and significant adverse impact on
the levels of amenity currently considered by residents of neighbouring
properties in Yew Tree Hill, Primsland Fields and Rebekah Gardens which
back on to Newland Road, which in particular is subject to substantial
change in form and character. The detail of this and other change is also
dealt with by others, most notably Mr Pettitt and Ms Illsley.
ST13787
January 2014
Page 6
Appeals
APP/H1840/A/13/2199085
&
APP/H1840/A/13/2199426
Proof of Evidence for SOGOS on Environmental Planning
5
MATTER
2:
THE
EMERGING
SOUTH
WEST
WORCESTERSHIRE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
5.1
The current position and context has already been extensively and
accurately represented by the Council.
5.2
The proposed developments when taken together (Appeal A and B) are
significant in that they are of the scale that would normally constitute a
strategic development in Plan-making terms (over 500 units). It is my
contention that granting approval through the appeal process either in
respect of both developments would significantly undermine the planmaking process by making a pre-determined judgement in isolation about
the location and scale of other housing development at a strategic scale.
5.3
These matters should as a matter of principle be addressed in the SWDP
as a Plan- making function, as justifying any development in isolation of
strategic consideration would have an adverse effect in perpetuity. This in
my opinion should not be considered lightly and considered arbitrarily
particularly in view of the existing Special Landscape Area designation of
the sites.
5.4
Whilst Appeal B is in my opinion related to less sustainable development,
it would to my mind enclose Appeal site A and therefore there is
cumulative impact which requires proper consideration taking in to
account existing and emerging considerations.
5.5
Granting permission to either or both Appeals A and B would in my view
undermine a very important evolving South Worcestershire Plan-led
system which is the vehicle to make assessments and reasoned choices.
These proposals and other existing housing commitments would in my
opinion deliver a scale of development where the cumulative impact
requires adequate strategic assessment.
5.6
It is my opinion that this level of growth in Droitwich Spa requires
consideration against significant matters like infrastructure as potential
planning constraints and assessment against core planning principles.
5.7
I think it is important to note that Yew Tree Hill was considered as an
urban extension in 2008 as part of the South Worcestershire joint Core
ST13787
January 2014
Page 7
Appeals
APP/H1840/A/13/2199085
&
APP/H1840/A/13/2199426
Proof of Evidence for SOGOS on Environmental Planning
Strategy Preferred Options. Location and access were at issue, and also
landscape character impacts and the impact on the setting of the rural
character to the south of the town. These important factors remain in
influencing the area’s omission from the current version of the SWDP.
5.8
Droitwich Spa is quite unusual in my view in that there is a very sharp
transition from town to countryside in the south, with the town sitting
behind the rural skyline of Yew Tree Hill with its western spur being a
strong defining visual, physical and sensible natural limit to the town. The
PTP Study of 1995 encompasses this, and further concludes that on
landscape grounds there should not be further development, citing impact
on landscape character, visual amenity and value to local residents (refer
to my Appendix A). The effect referred to and supported in-principle by
the 2005 Local Plan Inspector was that development would ‘appear as a
satellite village’ rather than an extension of Droitwich Spa. I not see that
anything has changed in that respect.
5.9
Through a notable period of site consideration there has been policy
support for development on the basis of landscape character, which in my
view remains at this time until any further review takes place, say in any
updated County Landscape Character Assessment. The current version
was adoped by Wychavon Council in September 2011.
ST13787
January 2014
Page 8
Appeals
APP/H1840/A/13/2199085
&
APP/H1840/A/13/2199426
Proof of Evidence for SOGOS on Environmental Planning
6
MATTER 4: THE EFFECT ON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF
THE AREA
6.1
There is demonstrable evidence through up to date policy that gives
significant weight to delivery of housing, a matter to be properly weighed
in the balancing exercise.
6.2
In this case however the proposed development would clearly result in
significant impact on the character and appearance of the area, and the
residential amenity of those residing in the locality. I have assessed all the
Landscape evidence put forward and take the view that there would be
significant harm to the character of the local landscape where I find it
hard to see any demonstrable justification at this time for ridge-line
development (or development cut in to the ridge). Mr Sparrow’s letter at
Appendix A gives a local resident’s perspective to the appeal sites and the
local environment.
6.3
The nature of the schemes is that their impact will be both substantial and
long-term. The harm to the character of the area, the surrounding
environment and overall amenity including that of neighbours, who have
objected to the proposals in great numbers, in my view constitutes a
compelling objection to the proposed appeal developments.
6.4
All the landscape experts involved in assessing the scheme have drawn
out different interpretations of landscape harm and how this might be
mitigated.
I
have
objectively
chosen
many
of
Ms
Illsley’s
prime
considerations in forming my view that the appeal developments are
unacceptable due to demonstrable harm.
6.5
Ms Illsley has in my opinion properly utilised the Worcestershire
Landscape Character Assessment working tool for development control
purposes and the outcome is clear. It is set out in Ms Illsley’s proof at
Section 2.7, and states ‘ ... adversely impacting on a settlement pattern
that is of key significance within this landscape type’.
ST13787
January 2014
Page 9
Appeals
APP/H1840/A/13/2199085
&
APP/H1840/A/13/2199426
Proof of Evidence for SOGOS on Environmental Planning
7
CONCLUSION
7.1
There is clearly a significant and acknowledged weight in supporting
proposals for appropriate housing growth, but there also weight to be
given to established development limits in the adopted local plan and to
the policy objective to safeguard the countryside. Until the plan context
changes, this should carry significant weight.
7.2
The question of whether it is necessary to release sites outside the defined
development limits to accommodate housing needs, notwithstanding the
development plan position, depends in my view on the judgement that is
made in terms of effect of the proposals on the character and appearance
of the area. Assessment of the qualities and character in this case related
to the appeals has been made and borne in mind this will be a long term
and irreversible decision.
7.3
It is my view that the material circumstances demonstrate significant
impacts and detrimental effect upon Droitwich Spa and its’ residents on
sites that are currently regarded as open countryside.
7.4
Both appeal sites lie outside the built up area of the town as defined in the
Wychavon Local Plan where Policy GD1 contains a presumption against
development and remains extant policy. Neither site is included within an
urban extension in the submitted South Worcestershire Development Plan.
This Plan-making process should undertake a strategic assessment of
future development and make a proper and informed judgment of
development needs, rather than ad-hoc decision making.
7.5
Drawing the overall planning balance, despite the weight afforded to
housing delivery in this case it is concluded that those considerations do
not outweigh the harm clearly set out as compelling objections.
7.6
I respectfully request, on behalf of SOGOS, that the Inspector dismisses
the appeals.
ST13787
January 2014
Page 10
Appeals
APP/H1840/A/13/2199085
&
APP/H1840/A/13/2199426
Proof of Evidence for SOGOS on Environmental Planning
ST13787
January 2014
Page 11