Further statement of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
MAIN MATTER 5: THE GREEN BELT AND OTHER PROTECTED
OPEN LAND
PRN: 1215
Rep NO: 104
EPP reference: FS2-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Further statement of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
Main Matter 5: The Green Belt and Other Protected Open Land
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
This statement addresses the questions listed under Main Matter 5: The Green Belt and
other Protected Open Land.
2.
RESPONSE TO MATTER 5
What is the justification for protecting land at Warburton and south of Shell,
Carrington?
2.1
Paragraph R4.6 identifies that the council will designate the land in Warburton
(immediately to the south of Partington) as protected open land. The justification text at
paragraph 24.22 clarifies that the land may be required to meet development needs
beyond the plan period.
2.2
Notwithstanding our expressed view that the site should be allocated for development
within the plan period, we generally support the designation as protected open land.
However, we consider that there is a case for identifying the land as ‘safeguarded land’,
rather than ‘protected open land’.
2.3
In effect, the land is being safeguarded in accordance with Paragraph 2.12 of PPG2 which
states:
“When local planning authorities prepare new or revised structure and
local plans, any proposals affecting Green Belts should be related to a
time-scale which is longer than that normally adopted for other aspects
of the plan. They should satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries
will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period. In order to
ensure protection of Green Belts within this longer timescale, this will in
some cases mean safeguarding land between the urban area and the
Green Belt which may be required to meet longer-term development
needs.”
2.4
In terms of justification, the land at Warburton is required to meet the development needs
of the Partington regeneration area and indeed the long terms needs of the borough. We
firstly consider the regeneration area:
Regeneration Area
2.5
The designation of Partington as an identified Priority Regeneration Area dates back to the
Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund Bid of January 1998.
2.6
The issues within Partington are recognised in the SRB document as arising from
Partington’s previous status as a Manchester overspill estate.
The SRB document
considers that these issues will persist without wider investment of social and economic
change. Partington is described as:
FS2-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Page 1 of 6
Further statement of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
Main Matter 5: The Green Belt and Other Protected Open Land
“a drab, dismal town with a high percentage of empty boarded up
houses and flats. The dilapidated environment of the area compounds
all the other problems faced by the community.”
2.7
A number of themes are identified for Partington. Of particular relevance is creating a
better environment for all, where the objective is to improve the physical environment of
Partington and Carrington and the image of the area and to make it a place where people
are proud to live and work.
2.8
The Partington and Carrington area is the beneficiary of an SRB programme with a total
budget of £2.9 million.
The overall aim of the programme is to develop community
capacity building with an aim of achieving real, sustainable economic and social
regeneration. Two Delivery Plans have been prepared. The first in 1998/1999 identified 5
objectives. These were to:
•
Enhance employment prospects, education and skills of local people;
•
Encourage sustainable economic growth by improving the competitiveness of the
local economy;
•
Protect and improve the environment and infrastructure and promote good
design;
•
Tackle crime and improve community safety; and
•
Enhance quality of life, health and capacity to contribute to regeneration of local
people, including the promotion of cultural and sporting opportunities.
2.9
Yearly Delivery Plans provided an update to these original objectives and referred to
specific projects and initiatives being developed. The aim of the SRB programme remains
as outlined in the year 1 delivery plan:
“To achieve real, sustainable regeneration, economic and social development
which will enable the people of Partington and Carrington to develop their
individual capacity and play and increased role in the development of their own
communities.”
2.10
The 2003/2004 Delivery Plan identifies problems experienced in 2003/2004 as:
“The neglected state of the Town Centre, and the declining population are major
concerns. The 2001 census revealed a loss of 15% of the population from the
area over the last decade. There are severe issues that need to be addressed to
make the community sustainable and local services viable. The production of a
draft strategic development framework to address the unbalanced population
through proposed new housing development should help reverse the decline.
However, the long lead in periods and planning issues to be overcome makes the
process frustrating for the community.”
2.11
A Strategic Development Framework for Partington was prepared by the Council in
October 2003. This was the first step in a wider process being pursued by Trafford MBC to
FS2-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Page 2 of 6
Further statement of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
Main Matter 5: The Green Belt and Other Protected Open Land
regenerate the area. The purpose of the framework is to support the social and economic
objectives identified for Partington into a physical development strategy that would ensure
regeneration is sustainable in the long term.
2.12
The Strategic Development Framework sets out the profile and baseline analysis of
Partington. Key points to note are:
•
The high proportion of socially rented stock within Partington and the limited
amount of new private housing has meant that the area has not been able to
accommodate the more affluent or upwardly mobile groups or attract these
groups into the area.
•
Trafford is one of the more affluent metropolitan districts within the Country
however, there are three wards where there are high levels of deprivation and
poor environmental quality. One of these is the Bucklow ward that largely
comprises Partington and Carrington.
The area is dominated by lower income
and deprived groups compared to Trafford and the UK as a whole (paragraph
2.4).
•
Partington has suffered from a significant decline in population since 1991 of
around 15% (paragraph 2.8).
•
The area suffers from higher levels of unemployment which are around twice the
Trafford average (paragraph 2.12).
•
Based on the multiple index of national deprivation, Bucklow falls within the top
5% of deprived wards of the country (paragraph 2.32).
•
The Partington area has a significantly lower proportion of groups within the
professional and managerial classes and other non-manual workers than either
Trafford or England (paragraph 2.12).
•
Within the Partington and Carrington area there is a much lower proportion of
owner occupied dwellings than in Trafford or England and Wales but a much
higher percentage of social rented housing. The 2001 census indicates that the
level of owner occupation in Partington of 51.3% is significantly lower than the
average in Trafford (72%) (paragraph 2.26).
•
In addition to having an over concentration of social housing, the Partington and
Carrington area is also dominated by small terraced and semi-detached houses
(paragraph 2.28).
•
The decline in population has already had a serious impact on the provision of
local services. This has included the closure of Orton Brook primary school, the
FS2-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Page 3 of 6
Further statement of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
Main Matter 5: The Green Belt and Other Protected Open Land
decline of the local shopping centre and increase in vacancies and contributed to
the closure of 3 pubs.
A further loss in population will threaten the future of
existing facilities such as the 4 other primary schools and Broad Oak High School.
A failure to arrest this decline will make it extremely difficult to attract more
people and new investment into the area (paragraph 2.33).
2.13
The Strategic Development Framework identifies the issues within Partington and
translates these into development opportunities for the area within the planning context.
The development of new housing within Partington is identified as being central to the
area’s regeneration.
2.14
In 2008 the council resolved to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of the
town centre together with the development of 550 houses on a greenfield site allocated as
Protected Linear Open Lane, a wildlife corridor and an Area of Landscape Protection
outside the settlement boundary.
2.15
As part of the local development framework, the council was preparing an Area Action
Plan (AAP) for Partington. Consultation on the issues and options report took place in
October 2007. This continued to identify Partington as a priority regeneration area and
sought the allocation of suitable sites in order to secure the regeneration of the area. The
AAP has since been discontinued. It is therefore essential that the Core Strategy sets an
appropriate policy framework for the continued regeneration of the area.
2.16
Our representations to the question below and to Main Matter 8 (Policy L3) set out in
detail our case for the need for additional allocations in Partington to meet the
regeneration needs of the area. We consider that more than 850 net additional dwellings
are required in order to meet the area long term regeneration needs during the plan
period. Furthermore, additional land for development will be required beyond the plan
period.
Wider needs of the borough
2.17
The council has been keen to point out throughout the development of the Core Strategy
that the Green Belt boundary in Trafford is tightly drawn, and restricts the amount of land
available for future development.
2.18
The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land
permanently open. We accept that in certain circumstances it is necessary to release
Green Belt land to meet specific development needs. Paragraph 2.7 of PPG2 states:
“Once the general extent of a Green Belt has been approved it should
be altered only in exceptional circumstances. If such an alteration is
proposed the Secretary of State will wish to be satisfied that the
FS2-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Page 4 of 6
Further statement of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
Main Matter 5: The Green Belt and Other Protected Open Land
authority has considered opportunities for development within the urban
areas contained by and beyond the Green Belt.”
2.19
It is clear from the above that land has previously been identified for future development
in order to prevent the need for the release of Green Belt land during and after the UDP
plan period. There is clear justification for doing so, particularly given the tight Green Belt
boundaries of the borough and its increasing development needs (as set out in detail in
our response to Main Matter 6).
2.20
Furthermore, the principle of the development of the land at Warburton to meet long term
regeneration needs has previously been established through the UDP. The development of
the site would be an efficient use of land, well integrated with existing development, and
well related to public transport and other existing and planned infrastructure, so promoting
sustainable development in accordance with Annex B paragraph B3 PPG2.
Is the policy towards Protected Land sufficiently flexible to enable land to be
brought forward for development if other sites, including the Strategic
Locations, fail to deliver as required in order to achieve the housing and
economic objectives of the Core Strategy?
2.21
Paragraph R4.6 identifies that the council will designate the land in Warburton
(immediately to the south of Partington) as protected open land. We support this
designation, which would represent a continuation of the designation in the current UDP.
2.22
Our representations above set out our view that a higher housing requirement for both the
borough and Partington itself is needed in order to make the Core Strategy sound. We also
have doubts over the deliverability of a number of the sites identified in the SHLAA in
Partington. The application for the development of the land adjacent to the ship canal for
550 houses is the subject of a resolution to grant from 2008, but we understand that the
Section 106 agreement is still yet to be signed. Even if it is signed, it is likely to be 5 years
before reserved matters approval is achieved and development commences on the site.
This would leave 10 years left of the plan to develop the site. At a rate of 40 per annum,
this would only deliver 400 units. The council is also relying upon a number of brownfield
sites to supplement the supply, including public houses and school land. We have
significant doubts as to whether these sites will be developed during the plan period.
2.23
Assuming that these sites do not come forward there is insufficient flexibility within the
Core Strategy to ensure that it is effective. In order to provide the necessary flexibility, we
consider that the area of other protected land at Birch Farm be identified within the Plan
to be used where it is clear that the identified sites are not delivering the required number
of houses. The land at Birch Farm is considered appropriate for this purpose due to its
exclusion from the Green Belt and its close relationship with Partington.
FS2-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Page 5 of 6
Further statement of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
Main Matter 5: The Green Belt and Other Protected Open Land
2.24
The explanatory text at paragraph 24.22 and 24.33 makes the assumption that the land
will not be designated for development in the Site Allocations DPD, and will be protected
from all but limited essential development to enable it to make the maximum contribution
to meeting future unquantified needs. We object to this. PPS3 is clear at paragraph 7 on
the need for local planning authorities to identify and maintain a rolling five-year supply of
deliverable land for housing, particularly in connection with making planning decisions.
The policy is not in accordance with national policy, and is therefore unsound.
2.25
If there is a demonstrable need for the development of the protected open land during the
plan period, there needs to be provision for this within the policy for development to be
permissible. This may occur due to borough wide or Partington specific housing need, or
to assist in the continued regeneration of the area.
FS2-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Page 6 of 6
Further Statement on behalf of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
MAIN MATTER 6: LAND FOR NEW HOMES / MEETING
HOUSING NEEDS
PRN: 1215
Rep NO: 102
EPP reference: FS1-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Further Statement on behalf of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
Main Matter 6: Land for New Homes / Meeting Housing Needs
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
This statement addresses the questions listed under Matter 6: Land for New Homes /
Meeting Housing Needs.
2.
RESPONSE TO MATTER 6
Taking into account an under performance in completions over the last few
years, does L1.2 make sufficient provision for residential development to meet
the RSS minimum requirements projected to 2026, together with Housing
Growth Point uplift?
2.1
Between 2003 and 2009 there was an under provision of some 208 dwellings against the
RSS requirement over the 6 year period. This under provision is likely to increase further
before the start of the proposed plan period (2011). The Core Strategy proposed to set a
new plan period of 2011-2026, and makes no mention of previous levels of over / under
supply.
Notwithstanding our comments above that applying the RSS requirement is
unsound and the evidence base has been superseded, it is also unsound to maintain the
RSS housing requirement 2003-2021 AND disregard previous levels of under provision.
2.2
The RSS requirement was an assessment of housing need between 2003-2021, and did
not simply provide an annual target. This approach would result in an under delivery of
housing in the borough, and would therefore fail to meet identified housing needs.
2.3
Our position is supported by a recent appeal successfully made by this practice. The
appeal was in respect of an application for 19 houses on a greenfield site in neighbouring
authority Rochdale. The council argued that the past deficit against the RSS requirement
should be deleted following the revocation of the RSS, and a new plan period should apply
(Appeal ref: APP/P4225/A/10/2129568). The Inspector concluded that this was
inappropriate (paragraphs 11 and 12). The appeal decision is appended at EPP7.
2.4
This is clear evidence that if the council is to retain the housing requirement set by the
RSS the Core Strategy should not create a new plan period and in effect delete the past
deficit against the RSS requirement.
2.5
To conclude, the policy is not justified by sufficient or adequate evidence, and it is not in
accordance with national planning policy. It is therefore unsound. If the Inspector accepts
the proposed housing requirement as set by the now revoked RSS, then the past deficit
from 2003/04 onwards must be retained in addition to the annualised RSS requirement to
2026.
FS1-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Page 1 of 8
Further Statement on behalf of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
Main Matter 6: Land for New Homes / Meeting Housing Needs
Does the most up-to-date evidence support the intended scale of housing
provision?
2.6
The recent CALA High Court Judgement (appended at EPP1) has implications for the
proposed housing requirement and our representations on it.
2.7
We have set out in our earlier representations that the housing requirement as set by
Policy L1 is unsound. The council’s proposed housing requirement is based upon the RSS
annual requirement, plus an additional 20% to 2018 based upon the council’s contribution
to the Greater Manchester Growth Point. We have argued in our earlier representations
that following the ‘revocation’ of the RSS, the housing requirement is no longer to be set
at the regional tier, and that the housing requirement must be based upon an up-to-date
and robust evidence base.
2.8
Following the HC judgement, a number of statements from the Secretary of State, the
Communities Minister and the Chief Planning Officer have been issued. The key points of
these are:
•
The advice set out in the Government’s letter of 27th May 2010 stating that it
intends to rapidly abolish regional strategies and setting out its expectation that
the letter should be taken into account as a material planning consideration in
any decisions still stands.
•
The Localism Bill will begin its passage through Parliament before 2011. The
proposed clause of the Localism Bill that will enact the Government’s
commitment to abolish regional strategies has been released in order to clarify
the Government’s intentions.
2.9
Further High Court Judgements have ruled that these statements are still material
considerations in the decision making process. However, we are still awaiting the final
High Court Judgement on this matter.
2.10
Notwithstanding the outcome of that judgement, the Localism Bill still needs to be passed
through parliament. The HC Judgement results in the RSS forming a current and ongoing
part of the development plan. Therefore, whilst the advice from CLG is that the HC
judgement merely has consequences in the short term until the Localism Bill is passed by
Parliament, PPS12 states that in order to be sound the Core Strategy must conform
generally to the RSS (paragraph 4.50).
2.11
It is necessary to re-emphasise that the RSS sets a housing requirement for the period
2003-2021, and that the Panel Report was clear that there was insufficient evidence to roll
the strategic housing provision forward to 2026, and that the appropriate solution was an
early review of the RSS (extract appended at EPP2). The partial review of the RSS was to
FS1-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Page 2 of 8
Further Statement on behalf of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
Main Matter 6: Land for New Homes / Meeting Housing Needs
amend the housing requirement, and consultations commenced upon various options in
2008, in advance of the RSS itself being adopted.
2.12
Following initial consultations on the partial review, it was decided that the housing
requirement would instead be revised through the Regional Strategy. A significantly higher
overall housing requirement for the North West was consulted upon in January 2010,
correctly considering NHPAU advice from the Government (extract appended at EPP3). For
reference we also append the relevant extracts from the NHPAU reports (EPP4 and EPP5),
as well as the 2008-based household projections for the North West (EPP6).
2.13
Whilst the RSS will form part of the development plan for the time being, it was adopted
on the premise that there would be an early review of the housing requirements. Work on
the Regional Strategy has ceased and the 4NW planning team is being wound down.
There is now no prospect whatsoever of the review of the housing requirements through
the Regional Strategy taking place.
2.14
There is no sound justification for maintaining the RSS annual requirement beyond the
RSS plan period (2003-2021), unless it is based upon an up-to-date and robust evidence
base that is fully in accordance with paragraph 33 of PPS3 and has been properly
consulted upon.
2.15
Therefore the presence of the RSS as part of the development plan does not change our
view that the housing requirement as proposed is unsound. We hereby set out our
position on the evidence base, including the recently released 2008-based household
projections.
2.16
Paragraph 33 of PPS3 provides the starting point for considering the housing requirement.
We hereby assess the relevant evidence:
Local and sub-regional evidence of need and demand
2.17
The affordability of housing in Trafford is a key problem in the borough. Table 3.5 of the
SHMA Update Report identifies that Trafford has the worst house price affordability ratio in
Greater Manchester, with the average house price being some 5.9 times higher than the
average household income.
2.18
There is a critical shortfall of affordable housing in Trafford. The SHMA identifies the net
annual need for affordable housing in Trafford as follows:
Total net need
Trafford
FS1-8433-CP-jc
4,015
Annual flow (20% of
total net need)
803
February 2011
Net annual housing
need
892
Page 3 of 8
Further Statement on behalf of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
Main Matter 6: Land for New Homes / Meeting Housing Needs
2.19
The net annual housing need is 892 additional affordable dwellings per annum. This
represents 154% of the authorities RSS requirement. Even if the council were to adopt a
ten year period to address the backlog of need, the net annual housing need would still
equate to 476 additional affordable dwellings per annum.
2.20
Set against the existing RSS requirement, it is clear that the need for affordable housing
will never be met. Instead, the shortfall will only increase. Addressing this extremely
significant need for affordable housing should be an absolute priority for the borough.
Consequently we consider that there is a requirement for higher levels of market housing
in order to address the backlog of housing need.
Advice from the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU)
2.21
The National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU) was commissioned following the
2007 Government Green Paper titled “Homes for the Future: More affordable, more
sustainable”. Its purpose is to provide the Government with advice about the supply
ranges to be tested by Regional Planning Authorities in future Regional Spatial Strategy
(RSS) reviews. We understand that the NHPAU is to be abolished as part of the recent
cuts announced by CLG. However, CLG will sustain access to its research reports and
these still comprise an important material consideration in the formulation of planning
policy.
2.22
The NHPAU published their recommendations in the document titled “Meeting the housing
requirements of an aspiring and growing nation: taking the medium and long term view”
in June 2008. The NHPAU report sets out minimum and maximum annual delivery rates
for each of the regions.
2.23
The NHPAU report sets out minimum and maximum annual delivery rates for each of the
regions. The minimum annual delivery rate for the North West to 2026 is 26,600, although
by 2016, the minimum delivery point should be 27,600. This is an increase of 16% or
4,489 households over the current RSS. The upper delivery rate for the North West to
2026 is 29,500, although by 2016, the projected delivery point should be 31,300. This is
an increase of 26% or 8,189 households over the current RSS.
2.24
Whilst the NHPAU report does not advise upon the housing requirements for specific local
authorities, its regional delivery rates indicate a clear upward trend in the housing
requirement, which should be reflected in housing requirements throughout the North
West.
Government Household Projections
2.25
The RSS requirement of 578 dwellings per annum was largely based upon the North West
Household Growth Estimates Study and the 2003-based household projections. The latest
FS1-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Page 4 of 8
Further Statement on behalf of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
Main Matter 6: Land for New Homes / Meeting Housing Needs
household projections indicate significantly higher levels of household growth than the
projections that informed the RSS housing requirement.
2.26
The latest household projections were released in December 2010. The projections
indicate that the number of households in Trafford is set to grow from 97,000 in 2013 to
114,000 in 2028. This equates to growth over the 15 year period of some 17,000
households, or 1,133 households per annum. If a reasonable vacancy rate of 2.5% is
applied to the projections, this indicates a need of 1,162 dwellings per annum.
2.27
The projections for Greater Manchester as a whole demonstrate a reduction when
compared to the 2006-based projections. The projections have been impacted upon by the
current economic downturn, which has caused a reduction in house building rates across
the country. This has resulted in lower projections than the 2006 based figures. We do not
consider that these reflect the actual long term need across Greater Manchester, which is
likely to be considerably higher as the economy recovers. In any case, the projected need
in Trafford is still significantly higher than the proposed housing requirement.
2.28
It is important to note that in the absence of the RSS or any other regional body (AGMA
has no planning jurisdiction), and in the spirit of Localism, the council cannot rely upon
other neighboring authorities such as Salford and Manchester to effectively cater for
Trafford’s housing needs. Trafford’s housing requirement must effectively meet its own
needs in order to be sound.
Conclusions
2.29
We consider that the evidence base upon which the RSS requirement was based is out-ofdate and has been superseded. All of the most up-to-date evidence released since the RSS
EiP and Panel Report points to a much higher housing requirement for Trafford. We
therefore consider that to use the RSS requirement would render the plan unjustified and
therefore unsound.
2.30
In view of our findings above in respect of local and sub-regional evidence of need and
demand, advice from the NHPAU and the most recent Government Household Projections
it is clear that there is clear statistical justification for a significant increase in the overall
housing requirement set by the revoked RSS.
2.31
The application of an increased housing requirement would result in the need to release
greenfield sites including protected open land during the plan period in order to meet the
boroughs housing needs. These sites provide the flexibility to increase the housing
requirement without the need to release Green Belt land during the plan period. Based on
the evidence base including the SHLAA (taking into account protected open land), we
FS1-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Page 5 of 8
Further Statement on behalf of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
Main Matter 6: Land for New Homes / Meeting Housing Needs
consider that a housing requirement between 800-1,200 dwellings per annum could be
achievable.
2.32
If the Core Strategy is adopted with the currently proposed housing requirement, we
consider that an early review of the housing requirement should take place in accordance
with paragraph 33 of PPS3, particularly if the RSS is revoked through the Localism Bill. We
consider that this should take place within 5 years of the Core Strategy being adopted and
should be clearly incorporated within the supporting text of the policy.
With reference to L1.3 what is the current position regarding funding for the
Housing Growth Point uplift? To what extent is this funding necessary to
provide the infrastructure for this uplift? Why is the uplift dependant upon
such funding being forthcoming?
2.33
We wish to clarify our response on this matter in light of the emerging and ongoing cuts to
public funding. We consider that the council’s approach is not justified.
2.34
The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) does not specify any of the amounts or benefactors
for the growth point funding, other than the £370k identified in years 0-5 to ‘support
housing growth’. It is fundamentally flawed to assert that a certain level of growth cannot
be achieved without the funding, without specific knowledge of how much the funding is
going to be and what ‘key infrastructure’ it was going to fund.
2.35
No further explanation is given on this issue throughout the IDP or the Core Strategy.
Furthermore, no consideration has been given as to whether the proposed developer
contributions and CIL requirements set out in Policy CS8 will address the funding of
improvements to ‘key infrastructure’ that the Growth Point funding is expected to finance.
2.36
The proposed approach to remove the uplift from the requirement in the absence of the
funding is contrary to the evidence base and the Trafford Housing Strategy 2009-2012,
which states that the boroughs inclusion within the Growth Point reflects the “ambition of
the Council and its Partners to be at the forefront of national initiatives to address housing
delivery and the development of sustainable communities” (paragraph 1.3).
Is the indicative 80% pdl target the most appropriate? Is it justified by
evidence? Have alternative targets been considered and if so, why were they
rejected?
2.37
Paragraph L1.7 sets an indicative target of 80% of dwellings to be delivered on previously
developed land.
2.38
Table L1 identifies out that previously developed sites comprise just 82% of the total
supply identified within the SHLAA. The estimated housing supply at 2011 is just 11,906
dwellings, which is just 456 dwellings more than the proposed housing requirement of
FS1-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Page 6 of 8
Further Statement on behalf of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
Main Matter 6: Land for New Homes / Meeting Housing Needs
11,450 dwellings (2008 - 2026). It is unrealistic to assume that all of the sites identified
within the SHLAA will be delivered within the 0-15 year period. We consider that the
target of 80% is unlikely to be deliverable, and the Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
2.39
We consider that the target should be revised downwards. Furthermore, if our objections
to the housing requirement, distribution and/or mix are accepted, the previously
developed land target should be reconsidered.
Does the intended housing distribution set out in policy L1 and Table L1 accord
with Core Strategy vision, which says that the focus of development will be
within the urban area, whereas the housing strategy intends to direct 70% to
the South City Region.
2.40
Paragraph L1.7 states that the council will release previously developed land before
greenfield land, and sets an order of priority for development. Paragraph L1.9 then states
that the development of greenfield land will only be considered where it can be
demonstrated that the development of that land will not compromise the achievement of
the brownfield land target over the Plan period and that without its release, the council’s
5-year housing land supply target could not be delivered.
2.41
We consider that these policies do not accord with Table L1, which shows the locations
where significant new housing development is to be directed. This identifies that of the
3,810 dwellings identified within the supply for 2011/12 - 2016/17, only 640 units are
within the Regional Centre Area and a 710 within the Inner Area. The council is therefore
relying upon 2,460 dwellings to be delivered in the South City Region Area in the first five
years of the plan, including the release of greenfield sites.
2.42
The proposed policy therefore does not match the proposed delivery and phasing. This
inconsistency results in the policies being unsound.
2.43
It must be recognised within the policy that thee development of greenfield land is central
to the delivery of the plan, as demonstrated in Table L1. Whilst PPS3 states that the
priority for development should be previously developed land (paragraph 36), there is not
a presumption against the development of greenfield land. Paragraph 41 states that
“when identifying previously-developed land for housing development,
Local Planning Authorities and Regional Planning Bodies will, in
particular, need to consider sustainability issues as some sites will not
necessarily be suitable for housing. There is no presumption that land
that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing
development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed”.
2.44
We therefore recommend that the order of priority for development is altered as follows:
•
Previously developed land within the regional centre, inner areas and
regeneration areas.
FS1-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Page 7 of 8
Further Statement on behalf of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
Main Matter 6: Land for New Homes / Meeting Housing Needs
2.45
•
Previously developed land in other areas.
•
Greenfield sites within the regional centre, inner areas and regeneration areas.
•
Greenfield sites in other areas.
Paragraph L1.8 states that even if it becomes apparent that build rates have not been
met, it is ‘possible’ that development proposals not in accordance with the proposed
phasing policy would still be found premature. We strongly object to this policy. PPS3 is
clear at paragraph 7 on the need for local planning authorities to identify and maintain a
rolling five-year supply of deliverable land for housing, particularly in connection with
making planning decisions. Paragraph 71 sets out that where LPAs cannot demonstrate an
up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites they should consider favourably planning
applications for housing. Furthermore, paragraph 72 states that Local Planning Authorities
should not refuse applications solely on the grounds of prematurity.
2.46
We therefore consider that the proposed policy approach is not in accordance with
national planning policy, specifically PPS3. It is also not the most appropriate strategy
when considered against the reasonable alternatives. It is therefore unsound.
2.47
The policy should clarify that greenfield sites may come forward ahead of brownfield sites,
in order to ensure a continuous deliverable supply of housing and to meet regeneration
needs and objectives.
3.
APPENDICES
EPP1.
CALA High Court Judgement
EPP2.
RSS EIP Panel Report (pages 124-125)
EPP3.
Regional Strategy Part 1 Consultation January 2010 (pages 30-31)
EPP4.
NHPAU report ‘Homes for the future: more affordable, more sustainable’ (pages 8
& 14)
EPP5.
NHPAU report ‘More homes for more people: advice to Ministers on housing levels
to be considered in regional plans’ (pages 19-21)
EPP6.
CLG 2008-based household projections (North West)
EPP7.
Appeal decision - Shawclough Road, Rochdale (ref: APP/P4225/A/10/2129568)
FS1-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Page 8 of 8
Further Statement of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
MAIN MATTER 8: ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE / INCLUSIVE
COMMUNITIES
PRN: 1215
Rep NO: 103
EPP reference: FS3-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Further Statement of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
Main Matter 8: Achieving Sustainable / Inclusive Communities
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
This statement addresses the questions listed under Matter 8: Achieving Sustainable /
Inclusive Communities.
2.
RESPONSE TO MATTER 8
Policy L3 - Regeneration and Reducing Inequalities
What is the justification for reference to provision of 850 new dwellings at
Partington? Have higher or lower figures been considered and, if so, why
were they rejected?
2.1
Our representations to the submission stage set out in detail the background to the
regeneration area including a resume of the Strategic Development Framework for
Partington.
2.2
Paragraph L3.4 of the Core Strategy states that within Partington, development and
redevelopment will be supported which will provide or contribute to the provision of
approximately 850 units of new residential accommodation. Firstly, we consider that the
wording of this policy should be amended to clarify that the 850 units provided will be net
additional dwellings.
2.3
Secondly, we consider that the level of development proposed is inadequate to meet the
regeneration needs of Partington, in particular the need to facilitate its development as an
attractive and sustainable residential location, and to improve the quantity, quality and
diversity of the housing stock in the township. The figure used of “approximately 850”
does not appear to be based upon any specific evidence. Rather, it seems to be based
purely on the capacity identified in the SHLAA. We consider that this is unjustified and
therefore unsound.
2.4
Background work undertaken in 2003 in the form of the Strategic Development
Framework for Partington identified that there is a need for a critical mass of at least 600
dwellings
during
the
period
2005-2015
in
Partington
in
order
to
support
a
redeveloped/reconfigured town centre. This equates to an annual need of at least 60
dwellings per annum.
Whilst this is a non-statutory document it is a background
document setting out the aims for Partington.
In accordance with this background
document, is considered that large scale development is necessary to bring about the
regeneration required.
2.5
This level of housing provision was set against the context of the previous housing
requirement of 270 dwellings per annum as set by RPG13, which was much lower than the
FS3-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Page 1 of 3
Further Statement of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
Main Matter 8: Achieving Sustainable / Inclusive Communities
578 dwellings per annum introduced by the RSS. The 60 dwellings per annum proposed
comprised 22% of the overall housing requirement. Applying this percentage to the
current housing requirement of 578 (excluding any allowance for growth point) would
result in an annual requirement for Partington of 127 dwellings per annum.
2.6
Based on the evidence relating to the regeneration of Partington, we consider there is a
need for at least 2,286 net additional dwellings in Partington to 2026 (127 per annum),
over the plan period (2008 - 2026). This much higher housing requirement would result in
significant
regeneration
benefits
in accordance
with the
Strategic Development
Framework, and this should be considered accordingly by the Inspector. If the overall
housing requirement is increased as we have stated it should be in our objections to Policy
L1, then this figure should be increased further.
2.7
It should also be noted within the policy that any housing target given for the priority
regeneration areas should not be treated as a maximum. New housing of a high standard
of design within these areas will contribute to the creation of sustainable communities and
achieving wider regeneration benefits.
2.8
In order to achieve the requisite quantum of development to regenerate Partington, it may
be necessary to release other land for development. The Core Strategy should incorporate
flexibility to allow for this. We address this in more detail in our response to Policy R4
below.
Has a viability appraisal been undertaken that demonstrates that 850
residential units are sufficient to meet the regeneration needs of Partington?
2.9
No.
2.10
The figure of 850 units is based on the capacity identified in the SHLAA, which excludes a
number of potential sites, included the safeguarded land at Warburton.
2.11
As we have set out above, we consider that a significantly higher proportion of
development should be allocated to Partington in order to achieve the large scale
development that is necessary to bring about the regeneration required. As we have
identified in the land at Warburton, additional deliverable sites are available to achieve
this.
What is the commitment referred to in the first sentence of L3.5? Is this a
planning application? Clarification is required.
2.12
This is a reference to the Partington Canalside development for 550 dwellings and retail
development referred to in more detail in paragraph 12.14.
FS3-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Page 2 of 3
Further Statement of Redrow Homes Ltd
Trafford Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD
Main Matter 8: Achieving Sustainable / Inclusive Communities
2.13
There is a resolution to approve the application; however we understand that the Section
106 agreement is yet to be signed. If it is signed, it would be an outline consent with a 5
year time limit before an application for reserved matters needs to be made. We have
concerns as to whether the site will be delivered during the plan period.
2.14
If delivery of this site fails to materialise, we consider that the plan should have the inbuilt
flexibility to bring forward additional sites to achieve the required levels of development.
The safeguarded land at Warburton would be the obvious to make up any expected
shortfall.
FS3-8433-CP-jc
February 2011
Page 3 of 3
Case No: CO/8474/2010
Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 2866 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 10/11/2010
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SALES
--------------------Between :
Cala Homes (South) Limited
- and Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government
-andWinchester City Council
Claimant
Defendant
Interested
Party
------------(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7404 1424
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
------------Mr Peter Village QC, Mr James Strachan & Ms Sarah Hannett (instructed by
MacFarlanes LLP) for the Claimant
Mr James Eadie QC & Mr James Maurici (instructed by Treasury Solicitors
Department) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 22/10/10
-------------
Judgment
Mr Justice Sales :
1.
This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government, announced in a Parliamentary statement on 6
July 2010, to revoke the Regional Strategies in place at the time of that decision.
Regional Strategies are development plans set at a regional level to assist in the
implementation of planning policies and in the taking of planning decisions.
2.
The application came before me on a “rolled up” basis, requiring consideration first
whether permission to bring the judicial review claim should be granted. Having preread the papers I took the view that the Claimant had an arguable case such that
permission should be granted at the outset of the hearing. Mr Eadie QC for the
Secretary of State did not oppose that course. Accordingly, I granted permission and
the hearing proceeded as a full substantive hearing on the merits of the Claimant’s
claims.
Factual background
3.
The Claimant is the owner of a plot of 87 hectares of farmland located near
Winchester. In February 2004, the Claimant submitted a planning application to build
2,000 residential properties and associated infrastructure and facilities on the site.
The local planning authority, Winchester City Council (“the Council”), did not
determine the application so the Claimant appealed to the Secretary of State. The
appeal was dismissed in February 2006 and a court challenge to that decision was
eventually dismissed in December 2007.
4.
In July 2006, the Council adopted the Winchester Local Plan. Section 12 of the Local
Plan is headed, “Major Development Areas”. At policy MDA.2 in that section, the
plan identified the site as a “reserve site” to construct 2,000 dwellings and associated
infrastructure. A reserve site is a site identified as a possible site for development
should a sufficient need arise and if certain conditions are fulfilled. Policy MDA.2
stated, in relevant part, as follows:
“Development on this site will only be permitted if the Local
Planning Authority is satisfied that a compelling justification
for additional housing in the Winchester district has been
identified by the Strategic Planning Authorities…”
5.
In May 2009, the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East Region (“the South
East Plan”) was promulgated under Part 1 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Act 2004 (“the PCPA 2004”). The South East Plan sought to provide a regional
framework for development in the south east. It identified sub-regions to be the focus
for growth and regeneration. It included, among a wide range of regional policies,
policies intended to provide for an expansion for regional housing provision between
2006 and 2026 by a net addition of 654,000 dwellings. Of the figure for additional
dwellings allocated to Hampshire, 5,500 were to be accommodated in that part of the
Winchester area known as the non-PUSH [Partnership for Urban South Hampshire]
part of the district, which includes the Claimant’s site. This was a requirement for a
substantial number of additional dwellings for that area, which increased the prospects
that the Claimant might be able to secure planning permission for the development of
its site in accordance with policy MDA.2 in the Local Plan. Accordingly, on 23
November 2009 the Claimant submitted a second planning application to the Council
for a substantial residential development on the site.
6.
Meanwhile, the national political parties issued policy documents in the course of the
general election campaign for the general election to be held in May 2010. The
Conservative party, in particular, indicated that if returned to government, it proposed
to abolish the regional tier of planning policy guidance set out in Regional Spatial
Strategies (the name for regional guidance issued under the PCPA 2004), leaving
planning policy guidance to be defined by national and local policies only.
7.
On 1 April 2010, the relevant part of the Local Democracy, Economic Development
and Construction Act 2009 (“the LDEDCA 2009”) - Part 5 (entitled, “Regional
Strategy”) - came into effect. It replaced the concept of a Regional Spatial Strategy in
the PCPA 2004 with that of a Regional Strategy as defined in section 70 of the
LDEDCA 2009. It also amended the PCPA 2004 in certain respects.
8.
Under the new legislative scheme, Regional Strategies are intended to supply broadly
the same regional planning framework as had the Regional Spatial Strategies
previously. By virtue of section 70(6) of the LDEDCA 2009, the Regional Strategy
for the South East, when that provision came into effect on 1 April 2010, included as
a major component the existing South East Plan (the former Regional Spatial Strategy
for the region).
9.
The Council failed to determine the Claimant’s second planning application, so on 19
April 2010 the Claimant appealed once again to the Secretary of State. At the end of
April, a public inquiry was fixed for the appeal to take place in September 2010.
10.
On 6 May 2010, the general election was held. The outcome was a coalition
government between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party. On 20
May 2010, the Coalition Government published “The Coalition: our programme for
government”. In this document, the Coalition Government announced:
“We will rapidly abolish Regional Spatial Strategies and return
decision-making powers on housing and planning to local
councils…”
11.
By letters dated 27 May 2010 from the new Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government (the Rt. Hon. Eric Pickles MP) to local planning authorities, the
Secretary of State wrote as follows:
“ABOLITION OF REGIONAL STRATEGIES
I am writing to you today to highlight our commitment in the
coalition agreements where we very clearly set out our
intention to rapidly abolish Regional Strategies and return
decision making powers on housing and planning to local
councils.
Consequently, decisions on housing supply
(including the provision of travellers’ sites) will rest with Local
Planning Authorities without the framework of regional
numbers and plans.
I will make a formal announcement on this matter soon.
However, I expect Local Planning Authorities and the Planning
Inspectorate to have regard to this letter as a material planning
consideration in any decisions they are currently taking.”
In the light of these developments, on 4 June 2010 the Claimant asked the Planning
Inspectorate to suspend the public inquiry. The Planning Inspectorate has acceded to
that request and has now re-fixed the public inquiry to take place in February 2011.
12.
On 14 June 2010, the Planning Development Control Committee of the Council
issued their report on a third planning application by the Claimant in relation to the
site made on 27 April 2010 (which duplicated the Claimant’s second planning
application) and set out their views on the Claimant’s second application so that they
could be considered at the public inquiry into that application. In the report, the
Committee recommended that the applications be refused. The reasons given by the
Committee pointed to the significance of the Secretary of State’s indication in his
letter of 27 May 2010 that Regional Strategies were to be abolished, as follows:
“CONCLUSION
11.1 On the basis of housing requirements in the South East
Plan there is a short-term requirement for housing land which
the application could help to meet, and a longer-term need to
plan for a major housing allocation, with this identified as the
preferred site. It had therefore been considered that these
factors amounted to a ‘compelling justification’ which should
result in the applications being considered acceptable in
principle, in accordance with Local Plan policy H.2. However,
since that original conclusion the Secretary of State for
Communities letter [of 27 May 2010] has been received and is
a material consideration. This allows local planning authorities
to reach decisions on housing land supply ‘without the
framework of regional numbers and plans’…
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation A – 09/02412/OUT
That had an appeal for non-determination not been lodged by
Cala Homes (South) Ltd on 19th April 2010 then Winchester
City Council would have REFUSED Planning Permission for
the development of 84 ha at Barton Farm, Winchester for the
following reasons:
1. That having regard to its consistent position on the
appropriate level of housing numbers for the non PUSH
area of Winchester district and the advice that it is able to
determine the application without the framework of
regional numbers and plans the Council is not satisfied that
the local need for housing amounts to the compelling
justification needed to justify the release of this reserve site.
…”
13.
On 6 July 2010, the Secretary of State made a statement in Parliament in these terms:
“Revoking Regional Strategies
Today I am making the first step to deliver our commitment in
the coalition agreement to “rapidly abolish Regional Spatial
Strategies and return decision-making powers on housing and
planning to local councils”, by revoking Regional Strategies.
Regional Strategies added unnecessary bureaucracy to the
planning system. They were a failure. They were expensive
and time-consuming. They alienated people, pitting them
against development instead of encouraging people to build in
their local area.
The revocation of Regional Strategies will make local spatial
plans, drawn up in conformity with national policy, the basis
for local planning decisions. The new planning system will be
clear, efficient and will put greater power in the hands of local
people, rather than regional bodies.
Imposed central targets will be replaced with powerful
incentives so that people see the benefits of building. The
coalition agreement makes a clear commitment to providing
local authorities with real incentives to build new homes. I can
confirm that this will ensure that those local authorities which
take action now to consent and support the construction of new
homes will receive direct and substantial benefit from their
actions. Because we are committed to housing growth,
introducing these incentives will be a priority and we aim to do
so early in the spending review period. We will consult on the
detail of this later this year. These incentives will encourage
local authorities and communities to increase their aspirations
for housing and economic growth, and to deliver sustainable
development in a way that allows them to control the way in
which their villages, towns and cities change. Our revisions to
the planning system will also support renewable energy and a
low carbon economy.
The abolition of Regional Strategies will provide a clear signal
of the importance attached to the development and application
of local spatial plans, in the form of Local Development
Framework Core Strategies and other Development Plan
Documents. Future reform in this area will make it easier for
local councils, working with their communities, to agree and
amend local plans in a way that maximises the involvement of
neighbourhoods.
The abolition of Regional Strategies will require legislation in
the “Localism Bill” which we are introducing this session.
However, given the clear coalition commitment, it is important
to avoid a period of uncertainty over planning policy, until the
legislation is enacted. So I am revoking Regional Strategies
today in order to give clarity to builders, developers and
planners.
Regional Strategies are being revoked under s79(6) of the
Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction
Act 2009 and will thus no longer form part of the development
plan for the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.
Revoking, and then abolishing, Regional Strategies will mean
that the planning system is simpler, more efficient and easier
for people to understand. It will be firmly rooted in the local
community. And will encourage the investment, economic
growth and housing that Britain needs.
We will be providing advice for local planning authorities
today and a copy has been placed in the house library.”
This is the decision to revoke Regional Strategies (including the South East Plan)
which is under challenge in these proceedings.
14.
On the same day the Department for Communities and Local Government issued
written advice for local planning authorities about the impact of the revocation of
Regional Strategies. The advice included the following:
“The Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government confirmed today that Regional Strategies will be
revoked (see the attached copy of the Parliamentary Written
Statement). In the longer term the legal basis for Regional
Strategies will be abolished through the “Localism Bill” that
we are introducing in the current Parliamentary session. New
ways for local authorities to address strategic planning and
infrastructure issues based on cooperation will be introduced.
This guidance provides some clarification on the impact of the
revocation; how local planning authorities can continue to bring
forward their Local Development Frameworks … and make
planning decisions in the transitional period. …
4. How will this affect planning applications?
In determining planning applications local planning authorities
must continue to have regard to the development plan. This
will now consist only of:
-
Adopted [development plan documents];
-
Saved policies; and
-
Any old style plans that have not lapsed.
Local planning authorities should also have regard to other
material considerations, including national policy. Evidence
that informed the preparation of the revoked Regional
Strategies may also be a material consideration, depending on
the facts of the case.
Where local planning authorities have not yet issued decisions
on planning applications in the pipeline, they may wish to
review those decisions in the light of the new freedoms
following the revocation of Regional Strategies.
The
revocation of the Regional Strategy may also be a material
consideration.”
15.
The Claimant’s concern is that if the Secretary of State’s revocation of the Regional
Strategy contained in the South East Plan is effective, that will materially affect its
case on appeal that planning permission should be granted for its development of the
site. The Claimant’s challenge is to the Secretary of State’s decision of 6 July 2010 to
revoke all Regional Strategies, including the South East Plan, rather than to the
Secretary of State’s letter of 27 May 2010. As explained by Mr Village QC for the
Claimant, this is on the basis that if the Secretary of State has no power to revoke
Regional Strategies in advance of securing legislation in Parliament to amend or
repeal the provision for Regional Strategies in Part 5 of the LDEDCA 2009, then it is
difficult to see how the Secretary of State’s letter could be given effect. No detailed
argument was addressed to me about what might be the effect of the Secretary of
State’s letter if the Claimant is successful in its challenge to the decision of 6 July
2010. At all events, it is clear that it is the Secretary of State’s decision of 6 July 2010
which is now the operative decision which purports to deprive the South East Plan of
significance for the planning decision to be taken on the Claimant’s applications, and
accordingly it is that decision which the Claimant seeks to challenge. The Claimant
fears that if the housing policies in the South East Plan are to be treated as having no
weight, its planning applications and appeal may well fail, since absent the imperative
to build a large number of additional dwellings in the non-PUSH area of Winchester
to be derived from the South East Plan, there will be no “compelling justification” for
the site to be released for residential development as required by policy MDA.2 in the
Local Plan.
16.
The Claimant issued its claim for judicial review on 9 August 2010, and it has come
before the court on an expedited basis. The Claimant relies on two grounds of
challenge to the Secretary of State’s decision of 6 July 2010. First, it submits that the
Secretary of State’s attempt to use his power under section 79(6) of the LDEDCA
2009 to revoke all seven of the Regional Strategies in place at that date (including the
South East Plan) as a first step leading to the abolition of Regional Strategies,
involves using that power for an improper purpose by undermining the policy of the
LDEDCA 2009 that there should – ordinarily at least – be Regional Strategies in place
for each region. The Claimant submits that the power for the Secretary of State to
revoke Regional Strategies given by section 79(6) was not intended by Parliament to
be used to effect the abrogation of the Regional Strategy tier of planning guidance by
executive action, which is what the Secretary of State has sought to achieve by his
decision. In that regard, the Claimant seeks to pray in aid the well-known principle in
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods [1968] AC 997 (see, in
particular, 1030 B-D per Lord Reid).
17.
Secondly, in the alternative, the Claimant submits that the Secretary of State’s
decision to revoke the South East Plan was taken in breach of obligations on the
Secretary of State contained in the Environmental Assessment of Plans and
Programmes Regulations 2004 (“the 2004 Regulations”), which give effect in
domestic law to Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain
plans and programmes on the environment (known as the Strategic Environmental
Assessment Directive – “the SEA Directive”). In particular, the Claimant submits
that before introducing his decision to revoke the South East Plan, the Secretary of
State should have reviewed (as required by Regulation 9 of the 2009 Regulations)
whether that change in the planning regime was likely to have significant
environmental effects and, if it was, should have conducted a detailed environmental
assessment before introducing the change.
The legislative framework relevant to the first ground of claim
18.
The co-ordination of large-scale planning considerations with local plans setting out
the policies of local planning authorities has been a long-standing issue in the
planning system. Views differ as to the appropriate level at which planning policies
should be set and by whom they should be drawn up and it is no part of the function
of this court to express views on such matters so far as may concern the best way to
achieve such co-ordination. The role of the court is confined to judging the
lawfulness of the action taken by the Secretary of State.
19.
The development of the planning system over the last forty years or so in this regard
may be briefly summarised as follows. Outside metropolitan areas, the Town and
Country Planning Act 1971 provided for two tiers of plans setting out the policies to
be given effect (subject to countervailing material considerations) in decisions on
applications for planning permission, namely structure plans (setting out strategic
policies at a sub-regional level) and local plans. That two-tier system was retained by
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In addition to these plans, the relevant
Secretary of State would also issue statements of national policy. The PCPA 2004
replaced structure plans with a different intermediate level of plan lying between
national policies and local plans (now contained in what are referred to as local
development documents), in the form of Regional Spatial Strategies.
The PCPA 2004
20.
Section 1(1) of the PCPA 2004 provided in relevant part as follows:
“1 .
Regional Spatial Strategy
(1)
For each region there is to be a regional spatial
strategy (in this Part referred to as the “RSS”).
(2)
The RSS must set out the Secretary of State’s policies
(however expressed) in relation to the development
and use of land within the region.
(3)
In subsection (2) the references to a region include
references to any area within a region which includes
the area or part of the area of more than one local
planning authority.
(4)
If to any extent a policy set out in the RSS conflicts
with any other statement or information in the RSS the
conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy.
(5)
With effect from the appointed day the RSS for a
region is so much of the regional planning guidance
relating to the region as the Secretary of State
prescribes.
(6)
The appointed day is the day appointed for the
commencement of this section.”
21.
In this way, section 1(5) (read with the definition of “regional planning guidance” in
section 12(3)) provided for a large volume of already existing planning guidance
issued by the Secretary of State in relation to the regions to be converted into
Regional Spatial Strategies. That conversion took effect on 28 September 2004.
22.
Section 2 provided for the creation of regional planning bodies (“RPBs”). By section
3, their functions included keeping the Regional Spatial Strategy for their region
under review.
23.
Section 5 is entitled “RSS: revision” and appears in a grouping of sections headed
“RSS revision”. By section 5, an RPB was required to prepare a draft revision of the
Regional Spatial Strategy when it appeared to it necessary or expedient to do so and
in certain other circumstances, including if directed to do so by the Secretary of State
under section 10(1). Any draft revision of the Regional Spatial Strategy was to be
provided to the Secretary of State who, under section 7, could arrange for an
examination in public to be held in relation to the draft.
24.
Section 9 made provision for the Secretary of State to consider representations on any
draft Regional Spatial Strategy and any report of a person holding an examination in
public. If, having done so, the Secretary of State proposed to make changes to the
draft, he was required to publish his proposed changes and to consider representations
made in relation to those changes.
25.
Section 10 appeared in the same grouping of sections headed “RSS revision”. It
provided:
“10. Secretary of State: additional powers
(1)
If the Secretary of State thinks it is necessary or
expedient to do so he may direct an RPB to prepare a
draft revision of the RSS.
(2)
Such a direction may require the RPB to prepare the
draft revision –
(a) in relation to such aspects of the RSS as are
specified;
(b) in accordance with such timetable as is specified.
(3)
The Secretary of State may prepare a draft revision of
the RSS if the RPB fails to comply with –
(a) a direction under subsection (1),
(b) section 5(1)(b), or
(c) regulations under section 5(7) or 11.
(4)
If the Secretary of State prepares a draft revision under
subsection (3) –
(a) section 7 applies as it does if the Secretary of State
receives a draft revision from the RPB, and
(b) sections 8 and 9 apply.
(5)
If the Secretary of State thinks it necessary or
expedient to do so he may at any time revoke –
(a) an RSS;
(b) such parts of an RSS as he thinks appropriate.
(6)
(7)
The Secretary of State may by regulations make
provision as to the procedure to be followed for the
purposes of subsection (3).
Subsection (8) applies if –
(a) any step has been taken in connection with the
preparation of any part of regional planning guidance,
and
(b) the Secretary of State thinks that the step
corresponds to a step which must be taken under this
Part in connection with the preparation and publication
of a revision of the RSS.
(8)
The Secretary of State may by order provide for the
part of the regional planning guidance to have effect as
a revision of the RSS.”
Section 10(5) is the provision which is the immediate predecessor of section 79(6) of
the LDEDCA 2009, which is central to the arguments on the first ground of challenge
in the present case.
26.
Section 11 of the PCPA 2004 made provision for the Secretary of State to make
regulations in connection with the exercise by any person of functions under Part 1 of
the Act (entitled “Regional Functions”). Section 12 set out certain supplementary
provisions.
27.
Part 2 of the PCPA 2004 is entitled “Local Development”. It includes provision at
section 15 for a local planning authority to prepare and maintain a local development
scheme, to include “local development documents”. By section 17, local development
documents are required to set out local planning authorities’ policies relating to the
development and use of land in their area.
28.
Section 19(2) provided in relevant part as follows:
“19. Preparation of local development documents…
(2) In preparing a local development document the local
planning authority must have regard to –
(a) national policies and advice contained in guidance
issued by the Secretary of State;
(b) the RSS for the region in which the area of the
authority is situated, if the area is outside Greater
London; …
(d) the RSS for any region which adjoins the area of
the authority; …”
29.
Under section 21, the Secretary of State is given powers of intervention if he
considers any local development document to be unsatisfactory. Section 24 provided
in relevant part as follows:
“24. Conformity with regional strategy
(1) The local development documents must be in general
conformity with -
(a) the RSS (if the area of the local planning authority
is in a region other than London); …
(2) A local planning authority whose area is in a region other
than London –
(a) must request the opinion in writing of the RPB as
to the general conformity of a development plan
document with the RSS;
(b) may request the opinion in writing of the RPB as to
the general conformity of any other local development
document with the RSS. …
(6) If in the opinion of the RPB a document is not in general
conformity with the RSS the RPB must be taken to have
made representations seeking a change to the document. …”
30.
Section 27 makes provision to empower the Secretary of State to prepare or revise
local development documents.
31.
Part 3 of the PCPA 2004 is headed “Development”. Section 38 in that Part provided,
so far as relevant, as follows:
“38. Development plan
…
(3) For the purposes of any other area in England than
Greater London the development plan is (a) the regional spatial strategy for the region in which
the area is situated, and
(b) the development plan documents (taken as a whole)
which have been adopted or approved in relation to
that area. …
(6) 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. …”
32.
By virtue of section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a local
planning authority to whom an application for planning permission is made is
required to have regard to the provisions of the development plan when dealing with
such application. The operation of that provision means that section 38(6) has
application in relation to decisions on applications for planning permission.
The LDEDCA 2009
33.
Part 5 of the LDEDCA 2009, entitled “Regional Strategy”, came into effect on 1 April
2010. It repeals and replaces sections 1 to 12 in Part 1 of the PCPA 2004 (“Regional
Functions”). Section 70 of the 2009 Act provides, so far as relevant, as follows:
“70. Regional strategy
(1) There is to be a regional strategy for each region other than
London.
(2) The regional strategy for a region is to set out –
(a) policies in relation to sustainable economic growth in the
region, and
(b) policies in relation to the development and use of land in
the region. …
(6) On the day on which this section comes into force the
regional strategy for a region is to consist of –
(a) the regional spatial strategy for the region subsisting
immediately before that day, and
(b) the regional economic strategy for the region subsisting
immediately before that day. …”
34.
Section 71 provides for Leaders’ Boards for each region to be established which, by
virtue of section 72, form part of the “responsible regional authorities” for the region.
35.
Section 73(1) provides:
“73. Sustainable development
(1) The responsible regional authorities and the Secretary of
State must exercise their functions under this Part in
relation to the regional strategy for a region with the
objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable
development. …”
36.
Sections 74 to 80 form a grouping of sections under the heading, “Revisions of
Regional Strategy”. Section 74 provides in relevant part as follows:
“74. Review and revision by responsible regional authorities
(1) The responsible regional authorities must keep the regional
strategy for their region under review.
(2) The responsible regional authorities may prepare a draft
revision of the regional strategy for their region when it appears
to them necessary or expedient to do so. …
(4) The responsible regional authorities must prepare a draft
revision of the regional strategy for their region (a) at such time as may be specified in regulations made by
the Secretary of State, or
(b) when directed to do so by the Secretary of State. … ”
37.
Section 75 provides in relevant part as follows:
“75. Community involvement
(1) For the purposes of the exercise of their functions in
relation to the revision of the regional strategy for their region,
the responsible regional authorities must prepare and publish a
statement of their policies as to the involvement of persons who
appear to them to have an interest in the exercise of those
functions. …
(3) The responsible regional authorities must comply with the
statement or revised statement in the exercise of the functions
referred to in subsection (1).”
38.
Section 76 makes provision for an examination in public to be held in relation to
revisions of any regional strategy, if thought appropriate. Section 77 imposes
obligations on the responsible regional authorities to have regard to certain matters “in
preparing a draft revision of the regional strategy for their region”.
39.
Section 78(1) requires the responsible regional authorities to publish any draft
revision of a regional strategy and to submit it to the Secretary of State for approval.
Section 78(2) provides that the Secretary of State may approve the draft or modify it
and approve it as modified. Before doing this, section 78(3) states that: “The
Secretary of State must consult such persons (if any) as the Secretary of State
considers appropriate…” and section 78(4) states that, in deciding whether to make
any modifications to the draft, the Secretary of State must have regard to certain
matters, including representations made to him.
40.
Section 79 is the provision which is central to the Claimant’s first ground of
challenge. It is headed “Reserve powers of Secretary of State”. It provides in
relevant part as follows:
“79. Reserve powers of Secretary of State
(1) The Secretary of State may revise a regional strategy if the
responsible regional authorities fail to comply with (a) the requirement under section 74(4)(a), or
(b) a direction under section 74(4)(b). …
(5) The Secretary of State must publish a strategy as revised
under subsection (1).
(6) If the Secretary of State thinks it necessary or expedient to
do so the Secretary of State may at any time revoke all or any
part of a regional strategy.”
41.
Section 80 is headed “Revision: supplementary” and makes provision for the
Secretary of State to make regulations or give directions as to the procedure to be
followed in relation to revision of a regional strategy.
42.
Section 81 provides in relevant part as follows:
“81. Implementation
(1) The responsible regional authorities must produce and
publish, and from time to time revise, a plan for implementing
the regional strategy for their region.
(2) The responsible regional authorities must for each period of
twelve months prepare a report on the implementation of the
regional strategy for their region. …”
43.
The LDEDCA 2009 also made certain consequential amendments to provisions in the
PCPA 2004 to replace references to Regional Spatial Strategies (e.g. in section
19(2)(b) and section 38(3) of the 2004 Act) with references to Regional Strategies.
44.
Mr Village for the Claimant sought to rely on the Explanatory Notes for section 70
and section 79 of the LDEDCA 2009 as an aid to the interpretation of those
provisions. The Explanatory Notes included the following statements at paragraphs
156 and 169 regarding section 70 and section 79 respectively:
“Section 70 – Regional Strategy
156. This section provides for a regional strategy in each region
other than London. A regional strategy must set out policies in
relation to sustainable economic growth, development and the
use of land within the region and can include different policies
for different areas within the region. …
Section 79 – Reserve powers of Secretary of State
169. This section sets out the Secretary of State’s reserve power
to revise a regional strategy in whole or in part, where the
responsible regional authorities fail to do so at the time
specified in regulations or directions. It also sets out the
Secretary of State’s reserve power to revoke a regional strategy
where the Secretary of State thinks it necessary or expedient to
do so.”
45.
In my view, these parts of the Explanatory Notes simply paraphrase the effect of
sections 70 and 79 in a summary way. I did not find them helpful as an aid to
resolving the issue of interpretation of the 2009 Act to which the Claimant’s first
ground of claim gives rise.
The first ground of claim: Padfield
46.
There was no significant dispute between the parties regarding the relevant principle
of law to be derived from the decision of the House of Lords in Padfield. The case
concerned the exercise of a statutory discretion by the relevant Secretary of State as to
whether to appoint a committee of investigation and to refer to it a complaint
regarding the operation of a milk marketing scheme. The Secretary of State refused
to appoint such a committee. The House of Lords held that he acted unlawfully in
exercising his discretion in that way, since by doing so he frustrated the policy of the
relevant statute which contained that discretionary power. The classic statement of
the relevant principle is by Lord Reid at [1968] AC 997, 1030B-D:
“It is implicit in the argument for the Minister that there are
only two possible interpretations of [the provision setting out
his discretionary power] – either he must refer every complaint
or he has an unfettered discretion to refuse to refer in any case.
I do not think that is right. Parliament must have conferred the
discretion with the intention that it should be used to promote
the policy and objects of the Act; the policy and objects of the
Act must be determined by construing the Act as a whole and
construction is always a matter of law for the court. In a matter
of this kind it is not possible to draw a hard and fast line, but if
the Minister, by reason of his having misconstrued the Act or
for any other reason, so uses his discretion as to thwart or run
counter to the policy and objects of the Act, then our law would
be very defective if persons aggrieved were not entitled to the
protection of the court. So it is necessary first to construe the
Act.”
(See also 1032G-1033A per Lord Reid and 1060G per Lord Upjohn).
47.
It is clear from Padfield that identification of the policy and objects of an Act of
Parliament is an exercise in the interpretation of that Act. The question whether the
exercise of some discretionary power conferred by a statute is impliedly limited in
some respect by reference to the policy and objects of that statute will depend upon
the construction of the relevant power in the context of the statute as a whole. The
answer in any case will depend upon the specific terms and the particular and detailed
scheme of the statute in question.
48.
Mr Village drew my attention to and sought to rely upon other cases which illustrate
the application of the Padfield doctrine in certain other statutory contexts: R v
Braintree District Council, ex p. Halls (2000) 32 HLR 770; Laker Airways Limited v
Department of Trade [1977] QB 643, especially at 698 and 704; and, in particular,
Congreve v Home Office [1976] 1QB 629, especially at 649F, 651B-D, 651H, 655CD and 659B-C. In my judgment, beyond providing further illustrations of the Padfield
principle in operation, the reasoning in these authorities depended (unsurprisingly) on
the detailed statutory and legal context applicable in each of them respectively and
they do not assist in resolution of the issue which arises in the present case.
49.
The issue in the present case is whether the Secretary of State is entitled to use the
discretionary power to revoke Regional Strategies contained in section 79(6) of the
LDEDCA 2009 to effect the practical abrogation of Regional Strategies as a complete
tier of planning policy guidance by his decision of 6 July 2010. At the heart of that
issue is a tension between section 70(1) of the 2009 Act, which states that “There is to
be a regional strategy for each region…”, and section 79(6), which provides that the
Secretary of State can revoke any Regional Strategy. Since the Secretary of State can
revoke a Regional Strategy, the statute contemplates that, notwithstanding the terms
of section 70(1), there may be occasions on which there is in fact no Regional
Strategy in place for a particular region.
50.
Mr Eadie submits that since the Secretary of State has power under section 79(6) to
revoke any Regional Strategy, he has power to revoke all Regional Strategies; since
he has power to do that, it is said, he has power under section 79(6) to revoke the
entire Regional Strategy tier of planning policy guidance if he considers (as he does)
that it is not operating in the public interest; the system of Regional Strategy planning
guidance may therefore be brought to an end by exercise by the Secretary of State of
his powers under section 79(6) without having to wait for the promulgation by
Parliament of new legislation to repeal Part 5 of the 2009 Act.
51.
Mr Village for the Claimant, on the other hand, submits that the exercise by the
Secretary of State of his power under section 79(6) for this purpose frustrates the
policy of the 2009 Act that, at least in the usual case, there should be a Regional
Strategy in place for each region as a tier of regional planning policy guidance to
which regard should be had by planning authorities in operating the planning system.
52.
In my judgment, the Claimant’s submission is well-founded. My reasons for arriving
at this conclusion are as follows:
i)
The LDEDCA 2009 maintains in place, with some modifications, the whole
elaborate machinery set up by Parliament under the PCPA 2004 to create a
new statutory tier of regional planning guidance in the form of Regional
Spatial Strategies, now re-named as Regional Strategies. I refer to some
particular features of the regime set out in Part 5 of the 2009 Act below, but
the main and critical point is that there is no sufficient indication in section
79(6) of the 2009 Act that Parliament intended to reserve to the Secretary of
State a power to set that whole elaborate structure at nought if, in his opinion,
it was expedient or necessary to do so because it was not operating in the
public interest. If Parliament had intended to create such a power for the
Secretary of State – something akin to a Henry VIII clause, since the practical
effect of it would be to grant the Secretary of State power to denude primary
legislation of any practical effect, without having to seek the approval of
Parliament for such a course by passing further legislation – it would in my
opinion undoubtedly have used much clearer language to achieve that effect
and would have given the provision far greater prominence than section 79(6)
has, tucked away as a final sub-section in a provision otherwise dealing with
revision of Regional Strategies. A contrast may be drawn in that regard
between the location of section 79(6) in Part 5 of the 2009 Act and the
prominence given to section 70(1) as the leading provision in Part 5, which
sets the scene for the provisions which follow in that Part and is the basis for
the whole elaborate framework which that Part puts in place. A number of
subsidiary points may be made in support of this fundamental point, as set out
below;
ii)
Section 70(1) of the 2009 Act is in clear declaratory terms, stating that “There
is to be a regional strategy for each region …”. It is difficult to think of a
clearer declaration of the statutory purpose of Part 5 of the LDEDCA 2009,
that there should indeed be such a Regional Strategy for each region. In my
view, section 70(1) can only be given proper effect if the remainder of Part 5
of the 2009 Act is interpreted as creating the machinery designed to promote
that statutory purpose. The only significant point of tension on this view of
Part 5 is with section 79(6), which allows for a Regional Strategy to be
revoked and hence contemplates that for a period there may in the case of
some region (perhaps even in the case of all regions) be no Regional Strategy
in place. In my judgment, reading section 79(6) in the context of the Part of the
2009 Act in which it appears (introduced, as it is, by section 70(1)), that
tension is to be resolved by interpreting section 79(6) as creating a power of
revocation (e.g. to take account of unforeseen circumstances which come to
light and call in question the desirability of maintaining a particular Regional
Strategy in place at a given time), but only with a view to setting in motion the
procedures set out in the Act for putting in place a new Regional Strategy as
soon as that is administratively practicable, so that the statutory purpose
declared in section 70(1) is promoted and given effect once again. On this
view, section 79(6) does not create a power for the Secretary of State to decide
(as he has done here) that, in principle, all Regional Strategies should be
dispensed with. Parliament has itself declared the relevant governing principle
in section 70(1) (namely, that each region should have a regional strategy) and
has given no clear or sufficient indication that that principle may be set aside
by virtue of a contrary policy judgment on that question of general principle
being made by the executive;
iii)
Section 79(6) appears in the Part of the 2009 Act entitled “Regional Strategy”;
in a grouping of sections headed “Revisions of regional strategy”; and is
followed in the statutory scheme by a provision (section 80) headed “Revision:
supplementary” (which suggests that the provisions which have preceded it in
the statute have all been concerned with the revision of Regional Strategies).
These features of the statutory scheme all indicate that section 79(6) is a
provision standing within a regime aimed at regulating the revision of
Regional Strategies and directed at promoting the governing object of Part 5 as
set out in particular in section 70(1) (to ensure that a Regional Strategy
appropriate to the region in question should be maintained in place, subject to
revision over time). There is no clear or sufficient indication that section 79(6)
is intended by Parliament to stand outside the regime for revision of Regional
Strategies, nor that it is intended to create a far more radical power to allow for
the effective abrogation of that regime. This point is reinforced by
consideration of the position of section 10(5) of the PCPA 2004 (the
predecessor provision of section 79(6) of the 2009 Act), where it is followed
by further sub-sections ((6), (7) and (8)) all dealing with modes of effecting
revisions of Regional Strategies. Since section 79(6) is in identical terms to
section 10(5) of the 2004 Act, there is a presumption that Parliament did not
intend to change the effect of the provision.
iv)
Section 79 is headed “Reserve powers of Secretary of State”. It replaced
section 10 of the PCPA 2004, which was headed “Secretary of State:
additional powers”. In my view, those headings tend to indicate that the
powers contained in the provisions in question are subordinate to the general
scheme of the relevant parts of those Acts dealing with regional planning
guidance. In neither statute is the power now contained in section 79(6) of the
2009 Act set out under a heading that clearly announces that it is to take effect
as a wholly distinct and fundamental power to abrogate the Part of the
legislation in which it appears;
v)
The provisions in Part 5 of the 2009 Act requiring Regional Strategies to be
published, making provision for the public to have opportunities to make
representations regarding their drafting (including, where appropriate, at
examinations in public) and for community involvement in the preparation of
such planning policy guidance (see section 75) are all strong indications as to
the importance which Regional Strategies are intended to have in the operation
of the planning system and for the guidance of the public. These are important
means of ensuring public participation in the creation of planning policy and
transparency in relation to such policy, and it is not plausible to suppose that
Parliament intended that they should be capable of being simply by-passed by
action taken by the Secretary of State under section 79(6), which carries with it
no procedural protections or requirements at all;
vi)
The centrality which Parliament intended Regional Strategies to have in the
planning system is underlined by the strong practical effect to be given to them
as set out in section 36(3) and (6) of the PCPA 2004 (as amended by the 2009
Act), when applications for planning permission fall to be determined. Again, I
do not consider that it is plausible to suppose that Parliament can have
intended that the Secretary of State’s power in section 79(6) should extend to
abrogating the whole system to have in place and give effect to such a primary
instrument of planning policy;
vii)
This last point is reinforced by the fact that a considerable number of
provisions in Part 5 of the 2009 Act (including provisions which impose
explicit duties on various persons to do things) pre-suppose that there is to be a
Regional Strategy in place (generally referred to as “the regional strategy …”
[my emphasis]): see in particular section 73(1), section 74(1), section 75(1),
section 76(1) and section 81(1). I consider that section 81(1) is a particularly
strong indicator in that regard, because it imposes an obligation on the
responsible regional authorities to produce and publish a plan for
implementing the Regional Strategy for their region. It is theoretically possible
to read these various provisions as implicitly qualified, when they refer to “the
regional strategy”, by the words “(if there is one)”, and in some circumstances
it will be necessary to read them in this way where the Secretary of State
lawfully exercises his power under section 79(6) to revoke a Regional
Strategy. However, since there is nothing to spell this out explicitly, the
drafting of these provisions gives the strong impression that one is usually to
expect there to be a Regional Strategy in place. The provisions thus feed from
and reinforce the significance of the declaration of the statutory purpose of
Part 5 of the 2009 Act set out in section 70(1).
53.
I therefore consider that the Claimant’s first ground of claim has been made out and
that the Secretary of State’s decision of 6 July 2010 falls to be quashed on that
ground.
Second ground of claim: absence of environmental impact assessment
54.
Since the Claimant has succeeded on its first ground of claim, the second ground of
claim does not arise, since there has been no effective change in any planning
guidance brought about by the Secretary of State’s decision. However, the Claimant’s
second ground of claim was fully argued on both sides, and it is appropriate to deal
with it here.
55.
There is no suggestion that the 2004 Regulations fail properly to implement the SEA
Directive, so it is appropriate to focus on the Regulations. The Regulations are drafted
using terms drawn from the SEA Directive and to give effect to that Directive, so they
are to be interpreted conformably with the Directive in the usual way.
56.
Regulation 2(1), so far as is material, defines “plans and programmes” to mean:
“plans and programmes … as well as any modifications to
them, which – (a) are subject to preparation or adoption by an
authority at national, regional or local level …” (drawing on the
definition in these terms provided by Article 2(a) of the SEA
Directive).”
57.
The SEA Directive, and hence the 2004 Regulations, are to be interpreted in a
purposive manner so as to promote the intended objects of the Directive (in particular,
according to recital (4) of the Directive, to provide for environmental assessment as
“an important tool for integrating environmental considerations into the preparation
and adoption of certain plans and programmes which are likely to have significant
effects on the environment in the Members States, because it ensures that such effects
of implementing plans and programmes are taken into account during their
preparation and before their adoption”). The adoption of a generous purposive
approach to the application of the SEA Directive (and hence of the 2004 Regulations)
is supported by analogy from the judgment of the ECJ concerning interpretation of the
Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, in Case C-72/95 Kraaijeveld BV v
Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland, judgment of 24 October 1996, at para. 31.
58.
Regulation 5(4)(b) provides that where a plan or programme is to be adopted which
“sets the framework for future development consent of projects …” the responsible
authority shall ensure that an environmental assessment is carried out in accordance
with Part 3 of the Regulations during the preparation of the plan or programme and
before its adoption. The responsible authority for the purposes of the present
argument is the Secretary of State. Regulation 9(1)(a) provides that the responsible
authority shall determine whether or not a plan, programme or modification of a
description referred to in regulation 5(4)(b) “is likely to have significant
environmental effects” (this is sometimes referred to as an obligation to undertake a
screening assessment).
59.
Regulation 8(1) provides, so far as relevant, as follows:
“A plan, programme or modification in respect of which a
determination under regulation 9(1) is required shall not be
adopted … (b) … before the determination has been made
under regulation 9(1).”
60.
It is common ground that no screening assessment or more detailed strategic
environmental assessment under Part 3 of the 2004 Regulations has been carried out
in relation to the decision of the Secretary of State of 6 July 2010 to revoke the South
East Plan. It is also common ground that a plan, programme or modification the
adoption of which may have significant environmental effects should be the subject of
a screening assessment, even if it is thought on the face of it that the environmental
effects may be beneficial: see footnote to Annex 1(f) to the SEA Directive and, by
analogy with the Environmental Impact Directive, R (Barker) v London Borough of
Bromley [2001] EWCA Civ 1766 at para. [65]. It may be that on fuller and closer
inspection the beneficial effects may be found not to exist or that the beneficial effects
in relation to one aspect of a policy may imply that other, detrimental effects will
occur in relation to other aspects of the policy or other locations. (It may be noted in
this case that the Secretary of State considers that revocation of the Regional
Strategies, leaving planning controls to be determined primarily at local level, may
promote more extensive house-building overall).
61.
In my judgment, the “development plan” as defined in section 38(3) of the PCPA
2004 (as amended) is a relevant plan for the purposes of the 2004 Regulations. It is
that “development plan” which is the principal (composite) instrument to be applied
to determine (subject only to countervailing material considerations) the outcome of
applications for planning permission, and so falls within regulation 5(4)(b). The
“development plan” defined in section 38(3) includes as a component “the regional
strategy for the region in which the area is situated”, alongside other development
plan documents adopted or approved in relation to that area. The Regional Strategy
may play a decisive role for the outcome of any particular planning application (a
point which the facts of the present case go some way towards illustrating – the
revocation of the South East Plan is likely to have an immediate impact upon
determination of planning applications: see paragraphs [11] and [12] above). Any
significant change in the content of a Regional Strategy capable of having a material
impact upon planning decisions may therefore qualify as a modification of the
relevant “development plan” applicable in relation to a particular area. Revocation of
a Regional Strategy will amount to such a significant change, and so will qualify as a
modification of the relevant “development plan” which leaves only the relevant
“development plan documents” referred to in section 38(3)(b) of the PCPA 2004 in
place to provide the substantive content of the “development plan”.
62.
All the existing Regional Strategies were made the subject of environmental
assessment before they were adopted, no doubt because of the practical impact that
they would inevitably have by setting part of the framework for decision-making in
planning cases. I can see no sound basis for the contention put forward by the
Secretary of State that revocation of Regional Strategies does not equally require at
least consideration under Regulation 9 whether similar detailed environmental
assessment is required. The revocation of a Regional Strategy may have as profound
practical implications for planning decisions as its adoption in the first place. Thus the
purposive approach to the interpretation of the 2004 Regulations referred to above
supports the same conclusion.
63.
I would add that I also consider that there is force in the alternative analyses proposed
by the Claimant, to the effect that a Regional Strategy is itself a relevant “plan” for
the purposes of the 2004 Regulations, and that revocation of that “plan” either
amounts to a modification of such “plan” (applying a purposive interpretation of the
Regulations, since it is difficult in the context of the object of the SEA Directive and
Regulations to see why significant but lesser changes to a Regional Strategy should
require there to be an environmental assessment, but that if the change takes the
extreme form of revocation of the Regional Strategy that requirement should suddenly
fall away) or to the adoption of a new relevant “plan”, namely the local development
plan documents standing alone, to be read without reference to the Regional Strategy.
64.
On a straightforward reading of the 2004 Regulations in the present context, therefore,
I consider that the Secretary of State acted unlawfully by purporting to revoke the
South East Plan Regional Strategy without first at least conducting a screening
assessment under Regulation 9.
65.
Against this, Mr Eadie sought to argue that no assessment is required under the 2004
Regulations before the revocation of a Regional Strategy takes effect, because it will
leave in place local “development plan documents” which will themselves have been
the subject of relevant environmental assessment. I do not accept this argument. In my
judgment, it overlooks the immediate practical impact that revocation of a Regional
Strategy may have in the planning process arising out of the interaction which is
usually to be expected between a regional strategy and a local development plan (see
section 19(2) and section 24 of the PCPA 2004, and especially since under section
38(3) of the 2004 Act they have to be read together) and of which a practical
illustration is afforded by the facts of the present case (see paragraphs [11] and [12]
above). It also overlooks the fact that the environmental assessment for a local plan
may have been conducted some years before the change effected by the revocation of
the Regional Strategy and may, indeed, have been conducted having regard to the
interaction between the local plan and the relevant Regional Strategy in place or in
draft at the time when the local plan was adopted.
66.
In further support of his argument, Mr Eadie argued (in a note submitted to the court,
with my permission, after the close of the hearing) that “there is no way in which [a
strategic environmental assessment] could be done on the revocation of a [Regional
Strategy]”. I have difficulty in accepting this. I do not see why, in a case where the
Secretary of State can lawfully exercise his power of revocation contained in section
79(6) of the 2009 Act, he should not first give notice that he is minded to do that and
then arrange for such environmental assessment as might be required in relation to
that proposed change in the planning regime to be carried out. If, as I am told,
environmental assessments were carried out in relation to the adoption of the existing
Regional Strategies, I do not see that there is any insuperable difficulty in conducting
such assessments as may be appropriate if they are to be revoked. Certainly, I am far
from being persuaded that there is any difficulty involved of a character that could
affect the proper application of the 2004 Regulations and the SEA Directive in
accordance with their terms and as interpreted above.
67.
For these reasons, had it been necessary to reach this stage of the analysis, I would
have found that the Claimant’s second ground of challenge to the decision of 6 July
2010 is also well-founded.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
FOR THE NORTH WEST
CHAPTER 6
LIVING IN THE NORTH WEST
6.41
We do not consider that the proposed housing provision should
be reduced for precautionary reasons, as suggested to us by
NWEL. We have seen no clear evidence that there would be
insurmountable difficulties in providing adequate water supplies
and sewage treatment capacity to serve the amount of housing
proposed in the draft RSS, or that this level of development
would cause unacceptable environmental damage. We deal with
this matter further in our consideration of Policy EM5 in Chapter
8 below. A reduction in the proposed level of house-building
would imply that the provision of new housing would fail to keep
pace with the increase in the number of households projected in
the CLG 2003-based forecast. It seems to us that this could
lead to an imbalance between demand and supply, which might
result in increased overcrowding and homelessness, and would
hamper the provision of affordable accommodation.
6.42
We are not persuaded that these problems could be solved by
bringing unoccupied dwellings into use, as argued by NWEL.
Policy L4 of the draft RSS already proposes that vacancy rates
should be reduced to 3% of the existing housing stock. This will
contribute to meeting housing need. However, we note that an
element of vacant housing is necessary to facilitate the
exchange of properties in the housing market, whilst a number
of existing vacant dwellings await redevelopment or
refurbishment, and cannot immediately be made available for
reoccupation.
Period Covered by Housing Policy
6.43
GONW asked us to consider the possibility of the RSS specifying
the amount of new housing to be provided up to 2026, in line
with PPS3. We recognise that by the time the RSS is adopted, it
will provide housing figures for less than 15 years into the
future, and that this will provide an unsatisfactory basis for the
production of local development frameworks. However, we
have insufficient evidence on which to roll the strategic housing
provision policy forward to 2026. In our view the appropriate
solution would lie in the early review of the RSS. In the interim,
and in the absence of other evidence, it seems to us that local
planning authorities should assume that the average annual
requirement set out in Table 9.1 of the RSS will continue for a
limited period beyond 2021, for the purpose of preparing their
local development frameworks. These could subsequently be
reviewed to reflect any change in the required provision arising
from an early review of the RSS.
124
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
FOR THE NORTH WEST
CHAPTER 6
LIVING IN THE NORTH WEST
RECOMMENDATION
R6.4
Policy L4 - Housing Provision After 2021
The following should be added to Policy L4:
“For the purpose of producing local development
frameworks, local planning authorities should assume
that the average annual requirement set out in Table 9.1
will continue for a limited period beyond 2021.”
6.44
A number of participants drew our attention to the fact that the
housing requirements in the draft RSS are for the period 2003
to 2021. By the time the RSS becomes effective, some 4 years
of this period would be gone. There is likely to be an immediate
shortfall in the average annual provision of new housing as
measured against the new requirements; and an even higher
annual average rate of provision will be needed to make up the
deficit. There was widespread support for the proposition that
the housing requirements should run from 2007. CPRE noted
that no start date was specified in Policy UR7 of RPG13. They
proposed the deletion of the 2003 start date from the draft RSS.
6.45
We do not accept that this would be appropriate. The average
annual provision is governed by the requirement to achieve a
net increase of slightly more than 411,000 dwellings in the
region as a whole over the period between 2003 and 2021.
That figure reflects the requirements of a growing economy, and
is broadly in line with the increase in resident households shown
in the CLG’s most recent projection. We have previously
explained why we consider that it would be inappropriate to
plan for a lesser provision. If the provision of new housing has
fallen below the required level during the early years of the RSS
period, a commensurate increase in average annual output will
be required in the remainder of that period.
Maximum Provision
6.46
Policy L4 of the draft RSS indicates that the housing provision
set out in Table 9.1 is to be the maximum to be achieved by
2021 in each local authority area, net of clearance replacement.
HBF, GONW and others queried the definition of the term “net of
clearance replacement.” We understand this to mean that the
figures in Table 9.1 represent the required increase in housing
125
B
4. Ensure the right housing
and infrastructure
We need to ensure that we have the right
infrastructure in place for sustainable economic
growth. This Strategy seeks to do that by:
a. securing high-quality housing in locations which
support sustainable economic growth;
b. ensuring high-quality digital connectivity to
stimulate enterprise, improve service delivery
and reduce the need to travel;
c. improving internal connectivity through a
sustainable transport infrastructure which better
connects opportunity and need;
d. developing the critical infrastructure the region
needs to support sustainable economic growth;
and
e. developing the region’s green infrastructure
to provide economic, environmental and
social benefits.
a. Housing
There are over 3 million households in the region,
and this is projected to increase in line with the
demographic trend towards more single-person,
older households and single-parent families, so a
substantial amount of new housing will be needed.
Indicatively the range of new housing completions
will need to be between 23,000 per annum (current
agreed RSS figure) and 29,000 per annum (the
high end of the National Housing and Planning
Advice Unit advice from Government).
We also need to improve the housing offer to
support our aspirations for a growing, knowledgebased, low-carbon economy and more inclusive
society. Quality is important to ensure that the
homes we deliver meet the aspirations of people
across all tenures, income and age groups.
Ninety per cent of the anticipated housing stock in
2030 is already built so improvement to existing
housing is critical in achieving our carbon
reduction, socio-economic and health aspirations.
The quality, age and nature of our housing stock
will present particular challenges requiring
coordinated joined-up responses across a range of
sectors and agencies.
We need to link housing to our wider objectives
under this Strategy. This means providing highquality accessible homes in neighbourhoods
people choose to live in. Linking housing to
economic growth, regeneration and employment
opportunities will be important, as well as ensuring
that people can access health, transport,
education, green infrastructure, natural environment
and training services. We need to do more to
enable people to keep living in their own homes,
particularly the older people, socially excluded and
vulnerable. All these priorities must work together
to support the place-making agenda, creating
vibrant and sustainable communities for people to
live, work and play in.
Areas where we could focus action include:
• ensuring new housing is well-located in relation to need, employment opportunities, transport and
services, and is well designed, high-quality, affordable housing in sustainable mixed and vibrant
communities in urban and rural areas;
• improving our housing offer to maximise its role in regenerating communities and supporting
economic growth
– to attract and retain talent to support growth sectors
– to meet the needs and aspirations of the local communities, by continuing to support the
restructuring of vulnerable housing markets as part of the wider regeneration and place-making
agenda, with particular focus on housing market renewal areas in Liverpool and Manchester city
regions, Blackpool, Pennine Lancashire, Barrow and West Cumbria;
• making the best use of all available resources in the region to provide high-quality housing support
services that deliver positive outcomes and enable people to succeed at living independently;
• improving the quality and energy efficiency of our new and existing housing stock across all tenures so
that they contribute effectively to the reduction of carbon emissions while also ensuring that they help
reduce fuel poverty and help improve the well being of our communities;
B
32 The Strategy
• supporting work to improve the condition of stock across all tenures including the retrofitting of energy
efficiency measures that will improve the SAP rating of homes, make homes more fuel efficient and
thus help reduce carbon emissions;
• ensuring that the private rented sector plays a full role in extending housing choice by driving up quality
and management standards;
• ensuring a range of housing options to meet the needs of the ageing population and those with care
needs with the aim of caring for people closer to home reducing the numbers of people in institutional
care; and
• recognising the specific needs of those living in rural areas, such as the wish to continue living there
with access to affordable homes, resulting in more sustainable rural communities.
Question 18:
Do you agree with these potential areas for
action? If not, what changes would you
suggest and why?
Advice on range to be
tested in regional plans
40. As in the June 2008 advice, we propose to use
the demographic method, without provision for
tackling existing unmet need and demand as the
basis of our bottom of the range figure. In terms
of the demographic method, this allows for no
improvement in housing conditions and takes no
account of the impact of increasing wealth and
the consequences that will have for demand for
housing. We appreciate that the affordability
model suggests that affordability could be
brought back to 2007 levels with lower net
additions in some regions. However, those
figures are dependent on the southern regions
(particularly London and the South East)
achieving very high build rates. Whilst there is a
strong case for those rates, it would be unwise
for other regions to base their planning on the
assumption they will be delivered in full.
using the same approach in subsequent updates
so that the maxima and minima figures become
‘moving averages’. This will help to avoid what
might otherwise have been a large swing in
planning assumptions.
43. Applying this damping approach, the NHPAU
advises the following updated supply ranges, as
shown in Table 4.
41. Again as in the June 2008 advice, we propose
to set the top end of the range at a level that will
both tackle the backlog demand and bring
affordability back to 2007 levels by 2026. This
means that the top of the range figure should be
the higher of the demographic maxima and the
figure suggested by the affordability modelling.
42. Whilst the NHPAU is confident that the figures
arrived at in this way are cautious, it is also
conscious that they would mean some
significant increases for some regions, mainly
due to updated trend data used in the ONS
population projections. It is always possible that
new trend data cause fluctuations in the other
direction in the future. In view of this and so as
to avoid a situation in which we suggest that the
model ranges go up substantially in this update
only for them possibly to be brought back down
in some regions in the next update, the NHPAU
proposes to ‘damp’ the changes and move the
ends of the ranges by only half of the amount
indicated by the latest evidence. We envisage
19
More homes for more people: Advice to Ministers on housing levels to be considered in regional plans
Table 4: Comparison of new and old housing supply ranges
June 08
minimaaverage
2008-26
New
minimaaverage
2008-31
%
change
June 08
maximaaverage
2008-26
New
maximaaverage
2008-31
%
change
North East
6,700
7,200
7%
7,500
8,200
9%
North West
26,600
26,500
-1%
29,500
29,900
1%
Yorkshire & Humber
23,800
26,400
11%
26,400
29,400
11%
East Midlands
23,400
25,100
7%
24,600
26,800
9%
West Midlands
19,000
19,600
3%
22,600
23,200
3%
East of England
30,600
31,600
4%
39,200
40,000
2%
London
33,800
33,100
-2%
42,600
44,700
5%
South East
37,800
38,000
1%
49,700
53,800
8%
South West
29,800
30,400
2%
34,800
34,500
-1%
231,500
237,800
3%
276,900
290,500
5%
England
20
Conclusions
44. The clear message that emerges unequivocally
from this analysis is that the credit crunch and
recession have not “solved the problem of
housing affordability for us”. House price falls
have not made it easier for struggling
households to obtain the accommodation they
need. Indeed, tighter lending criteria, including
much larger deposit requirements, have made
it far harder for first-time buyers to enter the
housing market.
45. Having weighed all of the factors and taken a
deliberately cautious approach, the NHPAU has
concluded that there should be some modest
upward movements in the ranges that most
regions should test in preparing their plans.
48. High levels of house building may not be
palatable or easily achievable but unless they
are delivered, or some other means is found to
narrow the gap between supply and demand,
the consequence will be increasingly severe,
including increasing susceptibility to market
shocks and more violent boom and bust cycles.
49. It should also be emphasised that the
affordability benefits of the levels of housing
provision suggested, will be better realised if the
extra housing is of the right type and size and in
the right place within each region. The NHPAU is
seeking to develop tools to enable it to advise
further on this key aspect of improving
affordability.
46. In the case of Yorkshire and the Humber, the
East Midlands and the North East, these are
largely attributable to updated trend data on
births and deaths and a better understanding of
migration patterns, which indicate that the 2008
advice was too low.
Next Steps
47. In the case of the South East, the increase in
the top end of the range reflects the pivotal role
of the region in the national housing market,
which has been brought out more clearly by
recent improvements in the modelling. The
NHPAU acknowledges that this will be seen as
extremely challenging. However, the analysis
that underpins that recommendation has made
cautious assumptions at each step with the
result that the Unit can be confident that the
chances that the actual requirement to stabilise
market prices in the long term will prove to be
lower, is small. This will not be welcome news
in the South East, but what the modelling is
telling us is something those who have studied
the English housing market in any depth have
known for some time: there is a substantial and
continuing mis-match between supply and
demand in the southern part of the country.
51. The NHPAU intends to discuss its advice with
regional partners and other stakeholders with the
view of developing a common understanding of
the likely consequences of different levels and
distributions of housing development.
50. The Minister for Housing will consider our advice
against the back drop of the Government’s
broader objectives and decide how it should be
reflected in formal guidance on the preparation
of regional plans.
21
Table 406: Household projections1 by district2,3, England, 1991- 20334
Thousands
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2013
2018
2023
2028
2033
19,166
19,284
19,391
19,494
19,630
19,756
19,874
20,000
20,156
20,335
20,523
20,691
20,831
20,969
21,170
21,344
21,527
21,731
22,868
24,108
25,320
26,472
27,536
2,722
2,732
2,745
2,754
2,766
2,774
2,781
2,792
2,796
2,812
2,827
2,842
2,861
2,877
2,893
2,908
2,921
2,935
3,044
3,165
3,279
3,382
3,473
Blackburn with Darwen UA
Blackpool UA
Cheshire East UA
former districts of:
Congleton
Crewe and Nantwich
Macclesfield
52
63
137
52
64
138
52
65
139
53
65
140
53
65
142
53
64
143
53
64
144
53
64
145
53
64
145
53
64
146
53
64
147
54
64
149
54
64
150
54
64
151
54
64
152
54
64
153
54
64
154
54
63
155
55
64
162
57
65
169
58
67
177
60
69
184
61
70
189
33
42
61
33
43
61
33
44
62
34
44
62
34
45
63
35
45
63
35
45
64
36
45
64
36
45
64
37
45
64
37
46
64
38
46
64
38
47
65
38
47
65
39
48
65
39
48
66
39
49
66
39
49
66
41
52
69
42
55
72
44
58
75
45
61
78
46
63
80
Cheshire West and Chester UA
former districts of:
Chester
Ellesmere Port & Neston
Vale Royal
123
124
126
127
128
128
129
131
131
132
133
134
135
136
136
137
137
137
141
146
150
153
156
13UB
13UE
13UH
47
31
44
48
32
45
49
32
45
49
32
45
49
32
46
50
33
46
50
33
47
50
33
48
50
33
48
50
33
49
50
33
50
50
33
51
50
33
51
51
33
52
51
33
52
51
34
53
51
34
53
51
34
53
51
34
56
52
35
59
53
35
61
54
35
64
55
35
66
00ET
00EU
Halton UA
Warrington UA
47
72
47
72
47
73
47
74
47
75
48
76
48
76
48
77
48
77
48
78
48
78
48
79
48
79
49
80
49
80
49
81
49
82
49
82
51
87
52
91
54
96
55
99
56
103
16UB
16UC
16UD
16UE
16UF
16UG
Cumbria
Allerdale
Barrow-in-Furness
Carlisle
Copeland
Eden
South Lakeland
197
39
30
41
29
19
40
199
39
30
42
29
19
41
200
39
30
42
29
19
41
201
39
30
43
29
19
41
202
39
30
43
29
20
42
203
39
30
43
29
20
42
205
39
30
43
29
20
43
206
40
30
44
29
20
43
207
40
31
44
29
21
43
208
40
31
44
29
21
44
209
40
31
44
29
21
44
210
40
30
44
30
22
44
212
40
30
45
30
22
45
215
41
31
46
30
22
46
216
41
31
46
30
22
46
217
41
31
46
31
22
46
218
41
31
47
31
22
46
218
41
31
47
31
23
46
227
43
31
49
32
23
48
237
44
32
52
34
24
50
246
45
33
54
35
25
53
254
47
33
57
36
26
55
261
48
34
59
37
27
56
00BL
00BM
00BN
00BP
00BQ
00BR
00BS
00BT
00BU
00BW
Greater Manchester (Met County)
Bolton
Bury
Manchester
Oldham
Rochdale
Salford
Stockport
Tameside
Trafford
Wigan
1,022
104
71
176
86
79
95
117
88
87
120
1,025
105
71
174
86
80
95
117
88
87
121
1,028
105
72
174
87
80
95
118
89
87
121
1,030
105
72
173
87
81
95
118
89
87
122
1,033
106
73
173
87
81
95
119
89
88
123
1,035
106
73
172
88
81
95
119
89
88
123
1,035
106
73
170
88
81
95
119
90
88
124
1,039
107
74
171
88
82
94
120
90
89
124
1,040
107
74
173
88
82
94
120
89
89
124
1,046
107
74
177
88
83
94
120
89
89
125
1,052
108
74
179
88
84
94
121
90
89
125
1,058
109
75
181
88
84
94
121
90
90
126
1,065
110
75
184
88
84
94
121
91
91
127
1,071
110
75
186
88
84
95
122
91
91
128
1,077
111
76
190
89
84
96
122
91
91
128
1,084
111
76
193
89
84
97
122
92
92
129
1,091
111
76
198
89
84
97
122
92
93
129
1,100
111
76
202
89
84
98
123
92
93
130
1,149
114
79
221
91
86
104
127
96
97
135
1,202
118
81
237
94
88
109
132
100
103
140
1,252
122
84
251
97
90
115
137
104
108
145
1,299
125
87
264
100
92
120
142
108
114
149
1,342
128
89
276
103
94
125
146
111
119
152
30UD
30UE
30UF
30UG
30UH
30UJ
30UK
30UL
30UM
30UN
30UP
30UQ
Lancashire
Burnley
Chorley
Fylde
Hyndburn
Lancaster
Pendle
Preston
Ribble Valley
Rossendale
South Ribble
West Lancashire
Wyre
443
36
38
30
31
53
34
51
20
26
40
41
43
445
37
38
31
31
53
34
51
20
26
40
42
43
448
36
38
31
32
54
35
51
20
26
40
42
43
450
36
38
31
32
54
35
51
20
27
41
42
43
453
36
38
31
32
55
35
52
20
27
41
42
43
456
36
39
32
32
55
35
52
21
27
41
43
44
459
37
39
32
33
55
35
52
21
27
41
43
44
461
37
40
32
33
55
35
52
21
27
42
44
44
463
37
40
32
33
56
35
53
22
27
42
43
44
466
37
41
32
33
56
36
53
22
27
42
43
45
470
37
41
32
33
56
36
53
22
27
43
44
45
474
37
42
33
33
56
36
53
23
27
43
44
46
478
37
42
33
33
57
36
54
23
27
44
45
47
483
37
43
34
33
58
37
54
23
28
44
45
47
487
36
43
34
33
59
37
55
24
28
44
45
48
490
36
43
34
33
60
37
56
24
28
45
45
48
492
36
44
35
33
60
37
56
24
28
45
46
49
494
36
44
35
33
60
37
56
24
28
45
46
49
514
36
46
36
34
63
39
58
25
29
48
47
51
535
37
48
37
35
67
40
60
27
31
50
49
54
554
37
50
39
36
70
42
62
28
32
52
50
57
572
37
52
40
37
73
43
64
29
33
54
51
59
587
38
53
42
37
76
44
66
30
34
55
52
61
00BX
00BY
Merseyside (Met County)
Knowsley
Liverpool
566
57
190
567
57
190
568
58
190
568
58
189
568
58
188
568
59
188
568
59
187
569
60
187
568
60
187
571
60
187
572
61
188
573
61
188
575
61
188
576
61
189
578
61
191
579
62
191
580
62
192
581
62
193
595
64
200
611
66
207
625
68
213
638
69
219
648
71
224
ED
ENGLAND
B
NORTH WEST
00EX
00EY
00EQ
13UC
13UD
13UG
00EW
16
00BZ
00CA
00CB
St. Helens
Sefton
Wirral
71
115
134
71
115
134
71
115
134
71
116
134
71
116
134
72
116
134
72
116
134
72
116
134
72
116
134
72
117
134
73
117
135
73
117
135
73
117
135
74
117
135
74
117
135
74
117
135
74
117
135
75
117
135
77
118
136
79
120
139
81
122
141
83
124
143
84
125
144
Notes:
1. Figures to 2008 are based on ONS mid-year population estimates and projected rates of household formation from trends in Census and Labour Force
Survey data. Other data sources, such as the Labour Force Survey, provide direct sample survey estimates of the number of households in each year and
therefore may differ from the estimates shown here. All projections are 2008-based. The 2008-based household projections are linked to the Office for
National Statistics 2008-based Population Projections, and are not an assessment of housing need or do not take account of future policies. They are an
indication of the likely increase in households given the continuation of recent demographic trends.
2. Sub regional household projections are less robust than those at the regional level, particularly for those areas with relatively small numbers of households.
This should be taken into account in using the figures. Due to rounding, districts may not sum to regional totals.
3. The sub regional household projections are not 'National Statistics'.
4. All figures are based on the methodology used in the 2008-based projections and may differ to those published under previous projections.
Contact:
Latest update
Telephone: 0303 444 2276
Next update
Email: [email protected]
File: hhep6-la
Nov-10
tbc
e
Appeal Decision
Inquiry opened on 25 August 2010
Site visit made on 26 August 2010
by Mrs K.A. Ellison
BA, MPhil, MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
for Communities and Local Government
The Planning Inspectorate
4/11 Eagle Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN
0117 372 6372
email:[email protected]
ov.uk
Decision date:
28 October 2010
Appeal Ref: APP/P4225/A/10/2129568
Land rear of 331-335 Shawclough Road, Rochdale, Lancashire OL12 7HL
•
•
•
•
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 Wainhomes Developments Ltd against the decision of Rochdale
Metropolitan Borough Council.
The application Ref 09/D52767 dated 8 December 2009 was refused by notice dated
13 April 2010.
The development proposed is residential development for nineteen dwellings.
Decision
1. I allow the appeal, and grant outline planning permission for residential
development for nineteen dwellings on land to the rear of 331-335 Shawclough
Road, Rochdale in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 09/D52767
dated 8 December 2009, subject to conditions set out in the attached schedule.
Preliminary Matters
2. The inquiry opened on 25 August and sat for two days.
3. Although initially a scheme for up to 30 dwellings, the proposal was amended
to one for nineteen dwellings during the time it was under consideration by
the Council. The proposal is made in outline, with matters of access and layout
to be determined at this stage. It includes information as to the dimensions of
each building, details of which were provided at the inquiry. A Unilateral
Undertaking has been submitted and is a material consideration.
4. Although mostly unallocated, a small part of the western area of the site is
defined on the Proposals Map of the Rochdale Borough Unitary Development
Plan 2006 (UDP) as being within the Green Belt. UDP policy G/D/2 seeks to
protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. In this regard,
Planning Policy Guidance note 2: Green Belts (PPG 2) states that the making of
a material change of use is inappropriate unless it maintains openness and
does not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.
5. No built development is proposed on this part of the site so its openness would
be maintained. Moreover, it appears that the Green Belt boundary as currently
drawn does not accurately reflect the original definition as set out in the
Greater Manchester Green Belt Local Plan 1984, where the wall along the
boundary of this part of the appeal site provided the physical feature which
marked the limit of the Green Belt. The appeal proposal would not, therefore,
affect the area of the Green Belt as originally intended. Given that the land
Appeal Decision APP/P4225/A/10/2129568
would remain open and that the original extent of the Green Belt in this area
would be unaffected, I consider that the development could not be said to
encroach into the countryside or to conflict with any of the other purposes of
including land in the Green Belt which are listed in paragraph 1.5 of PPG 2. On
that basis, I am satisfied that the proposal does not represent inappropriate
development in the Green Belt.
Main issue
6. The main issue is the effect of releasing this site for housing at this time on
local and national policies for the supply of housing.
Reasons
7. The site is irregular in shape but has three distinct edges bounded by Campion
Way to the south, Shawclough Road to the east and The Harridge and Harridge
Avenue to the north.
8. UDP policy H3 permits housing development on sites not allocated for that use
subject, among other things, to it being on previously developed land. The
appeal site is greenfield land. Policy H3 goes on to say that the release of such
land will only be permitted if the supply of land falls below 5 years, as defined
by the projected annualised rate and the site in question satisfies other
relevant policies which, in this case, would be policy G/SP/1. The central
matter in dispute therefore, concerns whether the current supply of land has
fallen below five years.
Housing Projections
9. The projected annualised rate comprises the annual requirement plus
clearances. The Appellant disputes the position taken by the Council in relation
to the period over which the annual requirement should be calculated and the
basis for calculating the level of clearances.
The annual requirement:
10. The UDP sets out a predicted annual requirement of 240 dwellings for the
period 2002 to 2016. With the publication of the Regional Spatial Strategy
(RSS) in 2008, this was revised to 400pa for the period 2003 to 2021. As the
figure of 400pa has been tested at regional level, both parties agree that it
forms the basis for calculating the annual requirement, even though RSS has
been revoked. However the Council contends that, for the purposes of this
appeal, the start date should be taken as April 2009.
11. One of the objectives of the plan-led system is to secure a sufficient quantity of
housing taking into account need and demand1. Whilst the Council may not
have been happy that the RSS introduced a significantly higher requirement
which was, effectively, backdated by five years, it has to be assumed that
there was sufficient evidence of need to justify that stance, especially since
that had also been the basis of the Draft RSS. Certainly, the Council’s own
representations on the matter refer to the importance of providing for 360-400
additional houses each year over the RSS period. The Council may well be
right in that the RSS start date no longer has any relevance to the adopted
1
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS 3) paragraph 10
2
Appeal Decision APP/P4225/A/10/2129568
development plan, but it does not follow that any unmet need ceased to exist
with the revocation of the RSS. Guidance issued with the decision to revoke
Regional Strategies2 makes it clear that housing numbers still need to be
justified by reliable information. No information has been provided to suggest
that the annual requirement should have been anything other than 400
dwellings for the period 2003-2008 and, in that light, a start date of April 2009
appears to be quite arbitrary.
12. The Appellant contends that the annual requirement should be assessed over
the period of the RSS, namely 2003-2021, since that is based on the most
recent, publicly tested evidence. There is considerable force in this point and,
in fact, it was accepted by the Council at the Inquiry that the RSS figures were
the best available. Although the emerging Core Strategy will introduce a new
time period, I understand that the 2009 Preferred Options Report is to be
reviewed in the light of the revocation of the RSS. It can therefore carry little
weight at this stage. In the absence of any published, planning justification for
an alternative approach I agree that, for the purposes of this appeal, the
requirement should be the one set out in RSS. This creates a requirement for
the period 2003 – 2021 of 7,200. As 1,456 dwellings (net) had been
completed during the period 2003-2009, the shortfall as at April 2009 would
have stood at 944.
13. However, I do not accept the Appellant’s case that this shortfall should be
apportioned across the subsequent five years. I consider that it would not be
appropriate here, to follow the same approach as in the Alsager3 appeal for
three reasons. Firstly, the guidance which influenced that appeal decision has
been cancelled. Secondly, to do so would significantly distort the requirement
in the short term because of the scale of the increase, from 240pa to 400pa,
and the fact that it was not formally brought into effect until 2008 when the
RSS was published. Finally, the Council’s own response to the RSS highlighted
the importance of phasing to allow consideration of issues such as clearance to
be taken into account within the annual figure.
14. On that basis, I consider that the shortfall of 944 should be distributed over the
remaining 12 years of the RSS period to 2021. As the Appellant notes, this
would equate to 78pa.
Clearances
15. The UDP has a start date of 2002 and sets out an assumed clearance rate of
140 dwellings a year for the period 2002-2016. Whilst the UDP is relatively up
to date, having only been adopted in 2006, more recent information on this
question is set out through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
(SHLAA), the Annual Monitoring Report and the Core Strategy Preferred
Options Report, all published in 2009.
16. In absolute terms, 1,420 dwellings were cleared in the period 2002-2010, well
above the annual rate assumed in the UDP. On current information, the
Council suggests such a high rate of clearance will not be maintained. One
important source was Langley, a large estate with a high level of vacancies
which has been undergoing restructuring. Almost 1,100 dwellings have been
2
3
Letter from DCLG to local planning authorities dated 6 July 2010
APP/R0660/A/09/2105034 dated 3 December 2009, Cardway Premises, Linley Lane, Alsager
3
Appeal Decision APP/P4225/A/10/2129568
cleared from that estate over the past decade or so, with only 38 properties
being left to go. Also, there are now fewer empty Council properties so any
future restructuring of such housing will proceed at a slower pace. Finally,
clearance rates in the private sector are expected to be less than predicted due
to increases in value. In this respect, I attach some weight to the Council’s
assertion that there must be some uncertainty regarding continuing funding
through the Housing Market Renewal initiative, given the current concerns over
public sector finances.
17. The Council points out that the annual clearance rate in the UDP would result in
a gross figure of 1,960 for the period 2002-2016. Due to the number of
properties already removed, this would leave 540 to be cleared over the 6
remaining years of that plan period or 90pa. Further support for a figure
around this level is provided from the analysis in the 2009 SHLAA, which
estimates a need to replace some 1,600 dwellings during 2010-2026, or 100pa.
18. The high level of clearances to date has already been taken into account in
arriving at the figure for net completions within the relevant period. For the
sake of consistency, it should likewise be taken into account when assessing
the future requirement within the same period. On the basis of current
information therefore, the Council’s estimate as to the effect of clearances
appears fair and reasonable.
19. Having regard to the evidence put to me at the inquiry therefore, the annual
requirement of 400 units should be increased by 78 to allow for previous
shortfalls and 100 for clearances, bringing the projected annualised rate
to 578.
The deliverable supply
20. According to the 2009 SHLAA, the supply for the next five years stands at
612pa4 gross. On the face of it therefore, the supply of land comfortably
exceeds the projected annualised rate. My attention has been drawn to a
report on housing land supply5 produced for DCLG which places Rochdale in the
category of local planning authorities where a five year supply is not present.
However this was a desk exercise and the finding in relation to this particular
authority appears to have been based on limited information. It can therefore
carry little weight.
21. PPS 3 paragraph 54 places particular emphasis on the deliverability of sites.
This is defined in terms of their being available, suitable and achievable. The
SHLAA sets out four categories: sites under construction; sites with planning
permission; new sites; and broad locations. The numbers have been arrived at
via a methodology which involved a ten stage process, including assessing all
sites in terms of whether they were suitable, available and achievable.
22. In the case initially advanced for the Appellant, it was contended that the
deliverable supply actually stands at 2,122 dwellings. From what I heard at
the Inquiry, I would have doubts over whether three of the 16 sites which the
Appellant specifically questioned are likely to come forward within the next five
years. The fragmented ownership of Fielding Street appears to be a significant
4
5
The total is given as 3,060 sites, which would actually provide an average of 610pa over 5 years
Five year housing land supply coverage in England, Planning Inspectorate, March 2010
4
Appeal Decision APP/P4225/A/10/2129568
obstacle. Also, it is unclear whether Wickenhall Mill or George Street are
currently available since the former was withdrawn from sale and the latter has
tenants in place. With the remainder, the objections mainly relate to the
pattern of renewed or lapsed planning permissions and the absence of current
developer interest. However, those factors do not make the sites unsuitable,
nor do they undermine the prospect of them being developed within the next
five years. As regards Queensway, the Council appears to have good grounds
to allow for an alternative scheme to come forward in what, from the
description given, is a desirable location. My findings in this regard would
reduce the overall total by 68.
23. At the inquiry, it was also argued that a 10% discount should be applied to the
figure of 635 units identified on small sites. I note that many of these were
included in the supply figures of the Housing Land Availability Report 2007 and
that some appear to have spent an unusually long time in the category of
dwellings under construction. However, even though it may well be the
practice of some authorities to apply a discount, it does not necessarily follow
that the same approach would be appropriate for Rochdale, with its high
proportion of previously developed land. Moreover, the numbers involved
would have a limited effect on the overall supply.
24. Although the SHLAA applies the tests as to deliverability with reasonable
rigour, I consider that the figure of 265 for what it classes as ‘broad locations’
represents a significant weakness in the data. At the Inquiry, it was explained
that this was not used in the same sense as in PPS36. Rather, it was an
estimate based on redevelopment and regeneration programmes in two specific
areas of the Borough – Heywood (92) and Kirkholt (172). The Council advises
that the figure includes some sites where planning permission has been
granted. Nevertheless, from the description in the SHLAA, both programmes
seem to involve a substantial element of building back on sites which have yet
to be cleared. Moreover, where sites are not identified individually, they
cannot be tested as to whether they are available, suitable and achievable.
This does not, in my view, represent the sort of robust evidence which PPS 3
expects in order to show that these sites are likely to contribute to the supply
within the time envisaged. Given the particular importance which PPS 3
attaches to deliverability, I consider that the inclusion of these broad locations
runs contrary to the intentions of national planning policy. The overall total
should be reduced accordingly.
25. On the basis of the evidence provided, I consider that the five year total of
3,060 in the SHLAA should be reduced by 68 as regards sites with planning
permission and 265 from the category of broad locations. Without these, the
overall figure would be 2,727 giving an annual supply of 545, slightly short of
the projected annualised rate of 578.
Effect on housing supply
26. From the discussion above, it is clear that the assessment of housing need and
supply involves making a number of judgements which are open to
considerable debate. Thus although I have found that the quantitative test in
6
PPS 3 paragraphs 53-55 allow for the identification of broad locations in the context of delivering housing over a
15 year period
5
Appeal Decision APP/P4225/A/10/2129568
UDP policy H3 has been met, this has been by quite a narrow margin and the
calculations have involved a number of assumptions. As a result, I consider
that it is particularly important to address the second part of the test in policy
H3, namely that the site in question also satisfies policy G/SP/1. This latter
policy promotes urban regeneration through concentrating development in the
urban area based on a sequential approach. Vacant greenfield sites fall within
the last of the three types of site which constitute the order of priority for
development.
27. In this respect, I put the question to both parties as to the effect of this
development on wider planning objectives and any consequences for housing
supply. In a written response, the Council suggested that the development
would prejudice regeneration since developers would be less likely to tackle the
more difficult, brownfield sites. This is a well established planning concern and,
in a Borough where 95% of the five year supply is on previously developed
land7, it carries considerable weight. Nevertheless, at the Inquiry, it was
acknowledged that there are several features of this proposal which weigh in its
favour. In particular, the site is within the urban area, it concerns land which
has no public recreational value and the development would offer a type of
housing which would appeal to higher income groups, an objective in the
emerging Core Strategy.
28. On balance, I consider that the release of this site would not work against the
wider planning objective of urban regeneration and I find no conflict with UDP
policy G/SP/1. Bearing in mind that PPS 3 expects applications to be
considered favourably where there is less than a five year supply of deliverable
sites, I conclude on my main issue that the proposal would accord with local
and national policies for the supply of housing.
Other Matters
29. Representations from nearby residents raised a number of other concerns.
During my site inspection I observed that, although there was planting to much
of the boundary, there was quite an open relationship with some of the
neighbouring houses. Also, because of the fall in the land, the appeal site sits
at a higher level than properties in Campion Way to the south. However, the
layout preserves reasonable distances between properties so that it should not
give rise to unacceptable harm with regard to outlook or privacy, subject to
detailed proposals in relation to appearance and landscaping.
30. I note the concerns as to the number of vehicles associated with this
development. The information provided in support of the proposal
acknowledges the impact except in relation to the Sherriff Street/Fallinge Road
mini roundabout. This is one of the matters to be addressed through the
Unilateral Undertaking.
31. The land falls away from north to south so that the risk of flooding was
identified as a particular problem by some residents in Campion Way. Whilst I
understand these concerns, the supporting information indicates there is no
evidence of existing springs within the site, with problems more likely being
associated with surface runoff from land with an impermeable sub grade. On
7
Annual Monitoring Report 2009
6
Appeal Decision APP/P4225/A/10/2129568
that basis, I am satisfied that matters of drainage could be dealt with at a
later stage.
Conditions and Unilateral Undertaking
32. I have imposed conditions along the lines set out in the Statement of Common
Ground and in accordance with the advice in Circular 11/95, The Use of
Conditions in Planning Permissions.
33. Since matters of access and layout have not been reserved, a condition
requiring development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans
is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
I agree that a site investigation is necessary to ensure the safe development of
the site. Given the relationship with neighbouring properties, details of the site
boundaries and finished floor levels should be provided to protect the amenity
of residents. For the same reason, the hours of work on the site should also be
controlled. There is some potential for overlooking from plots 13 and 18 so
that a condition to control the insertion of windows into the relevant elevations
would be reasonable in the interests of privacy.
34. The condition relating to the Code for Sustainable Homes is reasonable in the
interests of sustainability. Details of the access road are necessary to ensure
highway safety. The ecology survey noted that the main features of ecological
interest are the large trees around the boundary of the site. A condition for
their protection during construction is therefore necessary. As the survey also
recommended that lighting should not illuminate the trees, I have imposed a
condition requiring details of the lighting scheme to be submitted, to protect
the ecological value of the trees. Drainage and sewage arrangements may
affect neighbouring properties. Conditions on these matters are therefore
necessary to ensure the site can be adequately drained. However, in the
absence of clearer information as regards the presence of springs within the
site, I have not required details in this respect.
35. The Unilateral Undertaking makes provision for affordable housing in
accordance with the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document
2009. It also provides for a highway contribution to mitigate the impact of the
development on the junction between Sherriff Street and Fallinge Road. It is
therefore necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms
and is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.
Conclusions
36. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed.
K.A. Ellison
Inspector
7
Appeal Decision APP/P4225/A/10/2129568
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Miss Heather Barker,
Planning Solicitor,
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
She called
Mr Paul Ambrose
MTCP, MRTPI
Senior Planning Officer, Development
Management Service,
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
Mr Wayne Poole,
BA (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI
Planning Officer, HMR Initiatives,
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
FOR THE APPELLANT:
David Manley QC
of Counsel,
instructed by Emery Planning Partnerships
He called
Mr Stephen Harris
BSc (Hons) MRTPI
Associate Director, Emery Planning
Partnerships
INTERESTED PERSON:
Mr J Hall
local resident
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY
Document
Document
Document
Document
1
2
3
4
Document
Document
Document
Document
5
6
7
8
Statement of Common Ground
Dimensions of buildings and supported, illustrative plans
UDP policies G/SP/1, 2 & 3
Consultation response from the Council‘s Strategic policy
team dated 11 February 2010
Rochdale MBC – response to Inspector’s Query
Schedule of appeal decisions in Rochdale, 2008-9
Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (extracts)
2007 housing land availability register, with disputed sites
highlighted
8
Appeal Decision APP/P4225/A/10/2129568
Schedule to Appeal Decision APP/P4225/A/10/2129568: conditions
1)
Details of the appearance, landscaping and scale, (hereinafter called "the
reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority before any development begins and the
development shall be carried out as approved.
2)
Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local
planning authority not later than three years from the date of this
permission.
3)
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years
from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be
approved.
4)
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following: Illustrative development plan Rev A; Proposed site access
arrangements, plan 1205/02, Sept 2009; plans 047.12.S.01A;
047.12.S.02A; 047.12.S.03A; and the schedule of dimensions of house
types submitted at the Inquiry.
5)
No development shall take place until a site investigation of the nature
and extent of contamination has been carried out in accordance with a
methodology which has previously been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The results of the site
investigation shall be made available to the local planning authority before
any development begins. If any contamination is found during the site
investigation, a report specifying the measures to be taken to remediate
the site to render it suitable for the development hereby permitted shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The site shall be remediated in accordance with the approved measures
before development begins. If, during the course of development, any
contamination is found which has not been identified in the site
investigation, additional measures for the remediation of this source of
contamination shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The remediation of the site shall incorporate the
approved additional measures.
6)
No development shall take place until full details of the treatment of all
site boundaries including fences, walls, retaining walls and any other
means of enclosure have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. The treatment shall be completed in
accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the local planning
authority. Development shall be carried out as approved.
7)
No building or engineering operations shall take place and no deliveries to
or from the site shall be made other than between the hours of 07.3018.30 Monday to Friday, 07.30 – 14.00 on Saturdays and not at all on
Sundays or Bank Holidays.
8)
No development shall take place until a scheme for the design, drainage
and construction of the access road and car parking spaces has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Development shall be carried out as approved.
9
Appeal Decision APP/P4225/A/10/2129568
9)
No development shall take place until the finished floor levels for each
dwelling, relative to an agreed off site datum, have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be
carried out as approved.
10) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting
or modifying that Order), no windows or dormer windows shall be
installed in the north facing gable wall of plot 13 or in the east facing
gable wall of plot 18.
11) The plans and particulars submitted in accordance with condition 1 above
shall include:
i)
a plan showing the location of, and allocating a reference number to,
each existing tree on the site which has a stem with a diameter,
measured over the bark at a point 1.5 metres above ground level,
exceeding 75 mm, showing which trees are to be retained and the
crown spread of each retained tree;
ii) details of the species, diameter (measured in accordance with
paragraph (i) above), and the approximate height, and an
assessment of the general state of health and stability, of each
retained tree and of each tree which is on land adjacent to the site
and to which paragraphs (iii) and (iv) below apply;
iii) details of any proposed topping or lopping of any retained tree, or of
any tree on land adjacent to the site;
iv) details of any proposed alterations in existing ground levels, and of
the position of any proposed excavation within the crown spread of
any retained tree or of any tree on land adjacent to the site;
v) details of the specification and position of fencing and of any other
measures to be taken for the protection of any retained tree from
damage before or during the course of development.
vi) in this condition “retained tree” means an existing tree which is to
be retained in accordance with the plan referred to in paragraph (i)
above.
12) The dwellings shall achieve Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
No dwelling shall be occupied until a final Code Certificate has been issued
for it, certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieved.
13) No development shall take place until details of the implementation,
adoption, maintenance and management of the sustainable drainage
system have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The system shall be implemented and thereafter
managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Those
details shall include a timetable for its implementation, and a
management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development
which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or
statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the effective
operation of the sustainable drainage system throughout its lifetime.
14) None of the dwellings shall be occupied until works for the disposal of
sewage have been provided on the site to serve the development hereby
10
Appeal Decision APP/P4225/A/10/2129568
permitted, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority.
15) No development shall take place until details of any scheme for external
lighting on the boundary of and within the site have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development
shall be carried out as approved.
11