Just a few points raised in appeal judgement;
Planning Policy Background
9. Nonetheless I cannot agree that the draft Local Plan should attract considerable
weight as suggested by the Council. There are many Secretary of State and
Inspector appeal decisions which regard draft plans at a similar stage as
carrying less weight. The Council’s own plan has been afforded little weight in
the earlier months of 2013, and although the plan has moved on to an extent,
it has not moved on substantially. For these various reasons I consider that
the draft Local Plan can still attract no more than limited weight in this case.
Housing Land Supply
18. Both main parties agree that the starting point for the calculation of a 5 year
land supply should be the housing requirement set out in the former North
West Regional Strategy (RS).......
Hence the
housing requirement currently stands at 1150 dwellings per annum (dpa) for
CEC. This is 5750 over 5 years. Following the advice in the NPPF requires the
addition of either a 5% or 20% buffer (a matter I deal with later). The matter
of previous underachievement and the subsequent backlog is also material.
some strategic sites are dependent on enabling infrastructure being
put in place, and interdependent with it, such as at Basford East. I admire the
Council’s confidence that all will run well and that infrastructure will be
provided on time, but it cannot yet be assured. I recognise that the NPPF, in
seeking to ensure that sites identified in the 5 year supply are deliverable
cannot require complete certainty, but it does set a high benchmark of realism
for the assessment. To be considered deliverable sites must be available now.
I do not accept that a site in need of enabling infrastructure such as a link road
can reasonably be assessed as being available now even if there is a clear
intention to deliver that road in conjunction with housing. It may become
available in 2 or 3 years time, but until then it would be unwise to place too
much reliance on the potential for delivering housing from such sources.
Similarly there is a distinct lack of credible hard evidence that the projections
for Leighton West and other sites are achievable or realistic.
30. I turn now to the question of the backlog. It is agreed that the housing
requirement has not been met for a number of years. The backlog is,
cumulatively, some 1266 dwellings between 2003 and 2012, which takes into
account the earlier years when there was some exceedence of targets. There
is an additional shortfall in the year to March 2013 of about 500 dwellings,
bringing a total in the region of 1750 to 1800. It is well known that there are 2
schools of thought on how to deal with a backlog – the so called Liverpool and
Sedgefield methods. Liverpool spreads the backlog over the plan period (in
this case to 2031 for the draft Local Plan) and Sedgefield over 5 years. There
is no expressed preference for either method in the NPPF.
31. In this instance, however, the Council suggests that it would be appropriate to
spread the backlog over the period of the RS, to 2021, or 9 years. The reason
offered is that the backlog has been calculated by reference to RS figures from
its publication, and the performance during the subsequent years has been
measured in that light, so that it would be logical to complete the intended RS
cycle. I do not agree with that suggestion. The intention of the NPPF is clear –
it is to “boost significantly the supply of housing”. That aim would not be best
served by being too relaxed about the need to recover the backlog. I agree
with the Appellant that every effort should be made to deal with the backlog in
as short a time as possible. For that reason I subscribe to the Sedgefield
method. So any calculation of housing land supply must include the provision
of the backlog (at present) of about 1750 dwellings.
35. If, therefore the housing land supply figures are re-worked with new
assumptions the following situation becomes apparent. The 5 year
requirement is 5750. To that must be added the backlog of about 1750,
making a total of 7500. Adding the 20% buffer brings a total requirement of
some 9000 dwellings over 5 years, or 1800 per annum. The fact that such a
figure has rarely been reached in the past is not a reason for suggesting it is an
inappropriate target. Significantly boosting supply surely implies that
ambitious targets are appropriate.
36. The Council suggests that it can show a supply of something over 9000
dwellings in any event. However, I have already observed above that I
consider the Council to be too optimistic. There is uncertainty surrounding the
Local Plan itself. A large proportion of its identified supply is on strategic sites,
and in my judgement delivery there is unlikely to come forward as quickly as
the Council contends. Given that projections are inevitably estimates based on
landowners’ and developers’ current thinking, on the understandable desire to
‘talk up’ the chances of delivery, and on professional judgement, it would not
be a worthwhile exercise to try to deal forensically with every site in this case.
37. Both main parties to this appeal have provided expert assessments and the
difference on strategic sites is marked – for the Council a delivery estimate of
some 4000 dwellings, and for the Appellants not much more than 1100
dwellings. The outturn is likely to be somewhere between the 2, and I consider
that a realistic figure is likely to be closer to the Appellants’ figure than the
Council’s. However, for the purpose of this exercise I propose to allow leeway
to the Council and assume a delivery on strategic sites of some 3000 dwellings.
That removes about 1000 from their estimated supply, and brings it to about
8000.
38. There are other detailed differences between the Council and the Appellants in
relation to the likely delivery from, for example, sites awaiting the signing of
S106 agreements. One of these is the former Albion Chemical Works, which
has been subject to a resolution to grant planning permission for some years,
and has acknowledged delivery difficulties. The Council is optimistic of early
delivery, but there is no concrete evidence to back up that optimism. Again it
would be an academic and uncertain exercise to seek to examine each site in
detail in this instance. Suffice to say that my judgement more closely aligns
with that of the Appellants, and these further consequential reductions in likely
supply would bring the ultimate total to a lower level. I consider a figure of
7000 to 7500 to be realistic, but at the top end of the scale.
39. I am therefore satisfied of the following:
• There is a housing requirement, including backlog and buffer of some 9000
dwellings over 5 years or 1800 per annum;
• There is currently a demonstrable supply, taking a generous approach to
Council estimates, which is likely to be in the region of 7000 to 7500
dwellings at most.
• The demonstrable supply therefore equates to a figure in the region of 3.9
to 4.1 years.
40. As noted in paragraph 49 of the NPPF, therefore, the Council’s policies relating
to housing supply cannot be considered to be up to date, and there is a
requirement to consider applications in the context of a presumption in favour
of sustainable development. This is dealt with in more detail in paragraph 14
of the NPPF. It is worth pointing out that even had I applied a 5% buffer
(which I do not regard as appropriate) the Council’s supply would still fall below
5 years on the optimistic scenario I have used. Before carrying out the balance
required by the advice of the NPPF I will turn to the other issues.
Final Conclusion
87. The Council is unable, on my assessment, to demonstrate a 5 year supply of
deliverable housing sites. This is a substantial material consideration in favour
of the proposal. In addition the affordable housing to be provided is of
significant benefit. There is conflict with the development plan as described
above, but the harm identified, to landscape, loss of BMV land, and the loss of
outlook for local residents do not amount to significant and demonstrable harm
which would outweigh the benefits of the scheme. In this instance there are
material considerations which outweigh conflict with the development plan. For
the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
