Case Reference: 3236423

Appeal Decision
Inquiry Held on 14 to 17 and 31 January 2020
Site visit made on 14 January 2020
by Stephen Wilkinson BA (Hons), BPl, Dip LA, MBA, MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 24th February 2020
Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/W/19/3236423
Land west of Langford Road, Langford Road, Langford, SG18 9QU
• 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 [APPELLANT] against the decision of Central
Bedfordshire Council.
• The application Ref CB/18/04783/OUT, dated 21 December 2018, was refused by notice
dated 5 July 2019.
• The development proposed is residential development up to 55 dwellings (including 35%
affordable housing), landscaping, public open space, children’s play area, surface water
flood attenuation, vehicular access from Langford Road and associated ancillary works.
Outline with all matters reserved with the exception of the vehicular access from Langford
Road.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matters
2. The application was made in outline form with all matters reserved except for
access. Details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are therefore not
considered in this decision. The application was submitted with a
Development Framework Plan CSA/4013/105, showing the proposed areas for
housing and landscaping and flood attenuation together with the proposed
play area. Given that ‘layout’ is a reserved matter I have treated the drawing
as purely illustrative.
3. In advance of the Inquiry opening I received a Statement of Common Ground,
dated 13 December 2019, in respect of Minerals Safeguarding. This addresses
the Council’s second reason for refusal and states that in the event of the
appeal being allowed this matter should be dealt with by way of a planning
condition requiring the development to proceed in line with the submitted
Minerals Recovery Plan. Neither party presented evidence on this issue during
the Planning Inquiry and I did not receive representations from third parties. I
agree with this approach and accordingly, I regard this issue as closed.
4. The Council’s third reason for refusal includes the absence of a completed legal
agreement to offset the infrastructure impacts of the proposed development.
A completed Unilateral Undertaking (UU) dated 24 January 2020, made under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended was
submitted at the Inquiry and a Community Infrastructure Compliance
Statement was submitted by the Council. I address this matter later in this
decision.
5. The Council has prepared a new Local Plan for Central Bedfordshire which is
currently the subject of examination. The appellant and the Council agree that
in light of the stage of preparation of the plan, and the level of objections
raised, that limited weight can be attributed to its policies in this appeal.
Main Issues
6. The main issues in this appeal are:
• Whether the Council can demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply in line
with its requirements and the implications for national and local plan policy;
• The effect of the proposed development on the visual and landscape setting
of Langford and the character and appearance of the area, and
• Whether the proposals provide adequate infrastructure directly required for
this development.
Reasons
7. The appellant’s case is predicated in the first instance on whether the Council’s
adopted policies are ‘out of date’ as the Council cannot identify a 5 year
housing land supply and irrespective of whether this can be demonstrated
the housing policies most important for determining the application are
inconsistent with the Framework. If either of these prove to be the case, then
having regard to paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework
2019 (‘the Framework’) the ‘tilted balance’ in favour of sustainable
development would be engaged.
Planning Policy Context
8. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended,
requires regard to be had to the provisions of the development plan, so far as
they are material to the application and to any other material considerations.
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides
that if regard is to be had to the development plan for any determination then
that must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise. The Framework is such a material consideration.
9. The development plan for the area comprises the Central Bedfordshire North
Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (CSDMP) (2009), Site
Allocations DPD (2011) and saved policies from the former North Bedfordshire
Local Plan (first review 2005). Both parties agree that the weight to be
attached to the Development Plan should have regard to paragraph 213 of the
Framework.
10. The Framework requires that due consideration is given to which policies are
most important for the purposes of decision making and also the extent of
weight which should be accorded for the purposes of decision making. I deal
with each of these matters below. The degree of weight to be given to them
relies on their consistency with the Framework and the closer that they are
with its policies, then the greater weight that can be accorded1.I deal with
each in turn below.
11. The Statement of Common Ground identifies that the ‘most important’ policies
as required by the Framework are those included in the Council’s reasons for
refusal. Its decision cited Policies DM4, Development Within and beyond the
Settlement Envelopes; CS 16 and DM14, Landscape and Woodland; CS14 and
DM3, High Quality Development.
12. Policy DM4 provides a rationale for the identification of settlement envelopes
based on predominant land use and in so doing distinguishes between the
settlements within which levels of growth could occur and the rural areas of
the District where it would be resisted. I find no evidence that it is predicated
on growth levels identified from the revoked Regional Strategy. Running
through the supporting text and policy is an identification with the underlying
principles embodied within paragraph 8 of the Framework.
13. The Council identifies this as a ‘gateway’ policy in determining when other
policies such as those for the protection of the countryside should be used. I
acknowledge that this policy is not entirely consistent with paragraph 170 of
the Framework. Whilst the policy lacks the nuance which identifies the
different protections for different landscape types included in paragraph 170 it
has value in seeking some protection to the rural areas of the District.
14. I do not accept the appellants arguments that I should follow the approach of
my Inspector colleagues in the appeals in Meppershall2 and Stotfold3. Their
decisions were predicated on an assessment against the previous (2012)
Framework. Furthermore, both parties in this appeal acknowledge that despite
this policy, the Council continues to grant permission for development outside
settlement boundaries. It is not a bar on new development in these locations.
I therefore consider that this policy has moderate weight.
15. Policy CS16 seeks to ensure that change does not undermine the essential
features which define an area’s place and recognises the importance of
Landscape Character Assessments (LCA) as the starting point for this
assessment. It identifies specifically that landscapes of lesser quality should
be enhanced. I consider that the second and fourth bullets of the policy
identify with Paragraph 170 b) of the Framework as it seeks amongst other
matters to resist development where it would have an adverse effect on
important landscape features. Accordingly, I give this policy significant
weight.
16. Policy DM 14 requires that development proposals should include landscape
enhancements. It specifically highlights the Ivel valley. The wording of the
policy identifies closely with Paragraph 170b) of the Framework in recognising
the intrinsic value of the countryside and accordingly I accord this policy
significant weight.
17. In respect of Policies CS14 and DM3 these policies are predicated on the
delivery of sustainable development in line with the now revoked PPS14.
Despite this they seek to ensure that new development respects its local
1 NPPF 2019, Paragraph 213
2 CD 4.1.19APP/P0240/W/17/3190584
3 CD 4.1.21 APP/P0240/W/16/W/16/3166033
4 Planning Policy Statement 1 - originally revoked by the Framework 2012 which was revised in 2019
context and is appropriate in scale and design to its setting. I consider that
both policies are applicable to all proposed development irrespective of its
setting. The policies are consistent with paragraphs 127 c) of the Framework
and therefore I accord these policies significant weight.
18. There was considerable discussion during the Inquiry on whether Policy CS5
which set the housing requirement for the District for the CSDMP formed a
policy most important for this appeal. It was not identified as such by either
main party in the completed SoCG5. However, as the Council found no
conflict with this policy in its reasons for refusal and because the Councils
housing targets contained therein are now revoked, I am not persuaded that
Policy CS5 forms a policy that is most important for this appeal.
Housing Requirement
19. The approach to determining the extent of the Council’s housing requirement
is a point of issue between the parties. The Core Strategy was predicated on
the delivery of housing targets included in the now revoked Regional Strategy.
The Core Strategy policies are more than 5 years old and have not been
reviewed as required by paragraph 73 of the Framework and in these
circumstances the calculation of local housing need should follow the standard
method as set in national planning guidance. In contrast the Council has set
out its reasons why it continues to use the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN)
included in its Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) based on
‘exceptional circumstances’.
20. The differences in the approaches have a significant bearing on the
anticipated demand for housing for the period of the emerging plan 2015-
2035. The appellant’s approach suggests a need for 2,428 dwellings per
annum (dpa) compared to the Council’s OAN included in its SHMA of
1,600dpa.
21. Both parties acknowledge that the Framework is policy and not statute and
that it allows Councils to depart from the standard method for the calculation
of housing demand but only in exceptional circumstances. This is supported
by Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The Council has successfully defended
this position at several Section 786 Hearings and Planning Inquiries.
Furthermore, it provided a robust response to the Government’s consultation
on updates to National Planning Policy and Guidance (2018)7 where it
addressed this point.
22. Contrasting evidence was presented by both parties during the Inquiry on this
point. The Council identifies that it has an exceptional case because the
standard method uses as its first step the 2014 based sub national population
projections which continue to overestimate the extent of actual population
growth. Whilst the Council accepts that if the standard method is used it
would require 2,428 dpa as the appellants suggest, this would result in 20%
growth in stock between 2019-2029. If one discounts the London Boroughs
this is the largest rise in additional dwellings for an English Council. The
problems lie in the Mid Year Estimates (MYEs) which overestimate the
migration figures for the Council’s administrative area. The Office of National
5 Statement of Common Ground, dated 7 November 2019
6 Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended
7 CD 3.1.04
Statistics (ONS) have recognised this issue but despite making appropriate
downward adjustments the figures continue to overestimate the extent of
population increase.
23. The outcome of this work is that the Council has had the seventh largest
reduction to the 2016 MYE of any English authority outside of the London
Boroughs and the twelfth largest unadjusted population change (UPC)
reduction and is within the top 2.5% of all local authorities outside London
where these population changes have occurred. Together these figures have
resulted in the Council having large adjustments on both these measures
which whilst not unique in themselves the Council consider are exceptional.
24. Furthermore, the Council justifies its position with reference to other data sets
including the patients register, school census, and pensions data which
demonstrate that the level of population growth has actually been lower than
identified in the MYEs. In the evidence presented to the Examination in Public
(EIP) for the emerging local plan (Exam 338) the Council identifies that the
latest ONS estimate for mid-2015 is 272,421 persons, compared to its original
estimate which was 274,022 and the SHMA estimate of 271,526 persons. The
difference between the SHMA estimate and that of the ONS has reduced from
2,495 to 894 persons. This evidence points to the inherent inaccuracies in the
population data used for the standard method.
25. The critical issue for the Council is that the use of the standard method, which
forms part of Government policy does not in itself recognise these variances
resulting in a continued over estimation of population and consequently
housing supply requirements. The Council state that out of the 50 authorities
that its consultants have completed similar work for, only Aylesbury Vale DC
has the same systematic error in ONS data.
26. In contrast, the appellants argue that in adopting the 2014 population
projections the Government are giving priority to the delivery of 300,000
homes per annum. The Governments approach is designed to ensure
consistency, transparency and simplicity for local communities. It was
developed following the report of the Local Plan Expert Group and followed
extensive public consultation. It is an unashamedly policy driven approach
which is both transparent and open. They consider that to allow Councils to
depart from this approach could result in a failure to deliver on Government
policy.
27. The appellants identify that the Council is not exceptional or an ‘outlier’.
Unidentified population change (UPC), that is the difference between the 2011
population estimate in the rolled forward MYEs and the 2011 census accounts
for an increase of 103,680 people across English authorities and in some way
affects every Council. However, the majority of Councils have not, unlike
Central Bedfordshire, sought to depart from the standard method. This is
indeed borne out by the tables common to both proofs which identify the
variance in the UPC for other English Councils. However whilst this may be the
case, I agree with the Council that the critical issue regarding these figures is
that downward adjustments are more likely to ‘offend’ the standard method
compared to upward adjustments which would be more in line with the
Government’s priority to boost housing delivery.
8 CD 4.3.01 Exam 33 Housing and Employment Note
28. Furthermore, I accept that it is appropriate that the London Boroughs are
excluded from the ranking order included in the tables, included in the
appendices to the proof of the Council’s witness. The Greater London
Authority manages the calculation of housing land supply for individual
boroughs as part of its Spatial Development Strategy for the capital and it is
not a matter left solely for the individual Boroughs to address through their
local plans.
29. The appellant seeks to substantiate their criticism of the Council’s approach
through the use of further detailed statistical analyses. They also suggest a
‘hybrid’ approach involving a departure from the 3 step approach advocated
by the standard method with the development of 2 variants 9. This is a similar
suggestion to that made during the New Road Hearing10 which was rejected
by the Inspector because it did not follow the tried and tested principles of
either the standard method or the SHMA. I agree with my Inspector colleague
on this point.
30. The appellant suggests that the most appropriate place to debate the merits
of the standard method and the OAN is through a Local Plan Examination and
not just through a Section 78 Inquiry. But this is what the Council is currently
doing. It’s use of the SHMA to inform this appeal is entirely consistent with
the approach adopted by neighbouring Luton Borough Council for its Local
Plan and the Council’s evidence base for its emerging local plan having been
prepared in line with transitional arrangements and which is currently
undergoing Examination. In my opinion for the Council to depart from this
process for a section 78 planning appeal would be perverse at this stage.
31. Furthermore, parties drew my attention to Exam 3311 of the Examination
evidence. My reading of this paper is that it does not indicate that the
Examining Inspectors have raised fundamental issues with the Council’s use
of the SHMA but are seeking clarification on a number of points. Finally, on a
strategic point if the Council were to knowingly use data sets which inflated
the levels of demand for housing there would be a consequence for other
services which could result in over provision. This would not serve the public
interest.
32. Both parties made reference during the Inquiry to the decisions of my
colleague inspectors on this matter and in particular to those most recent
decisions New Road, Clifton12, Clophill Road Maulden13, The Park Farm
Westoning14 where the Council’s witness for this appeal also gave evidence.
Whilst I am not bound by these decisions, they each acknowledge that
departure from the standard method is acceptable in exceptional
circumstances and each appeal was dismissed. Importantly each of these
decisions was made following the adoption of the latest draft of the
Framework.
33. Reference was also made by the appellant to an appeal decision in Tendring
District Council15 which the appellant’s witness stated has a greater variance
9 Proof of Mr Tom Baker Table 1 pp23-27
10 APP/P0240/W/19/3220640
11 CD 4.3.01 Exam 33 is a paper on housing issues issued by the Council as part of its evidence base
12 CD 4.1.23 APP/P0240/W/18/3206459
13 CD 4.1.24 APP/P0240/W/18/3216675
14 CD 4.1.27 APP/P0240/W/18/3204513
15 APP/P1560//W18/3194826 P31 Mr Baker’s proof
in population estimates caused by the MYE than Central Bedfordshire.
However, through cross examination Mr Baker admitted that from his
understanding Tendring did not advocate for an alternative to the standard
method and in these circumstances it would not normally be the role of the
Inspector to advocate for a departure from the standard method if an
alternative was not being suggested. I therefore consider this decision has
little bearing on this appeal and I give it limited weight.
34. The calculation of population estimates is an inexact science and the different
approaches of both parties have their imperfections. For the Council to be
justified in substantiating its case does not require it to be an extreme outlier
in the rankings of local authorities, only that it has legitimate concerns which
are evidenced by serious flaws in the population projections which would be
used to inform the standard method. Individual Councils have the leeway to
calculate their housing requirements in this way. Both parties acknowledge
that Councils can depart from the standard method; this is consistent with the
use of the SHMA for Central Beds emerging local plan under the transitional
arrangements. However, I do recognise that the SHMA, from Mr Parker’s
evidence for the appellants, uses a narrower definition of housing need than
that now advocated in the Planning Practice Guidance (the Guidance) which
could result in a low estimation for assessing the levels of affordable housing
required. However, this is outweighed by the overall need to ensure that the
Council employs population figures which more accurately reflect the extent of
growth across its administrative area in order to accurately plan for service
delivery on a coherent basis.
35. Whilst acknowledging the importance of the Government’s priority to deliver
more housing I conclude on this issue that the Council’s use of the SHMA to
identify the level of housing demand is appropriate. One Council adopting a
different method from the norm which is based on sound evidence to that
advocated in national guidance would not in itself undermine or threaten the
delivery of the Government’s stated objective of achieving 300,000
completions per annum. The Framework allows the setting aside of the
standard method in exceptional circumstances. I consider that the Council has
in this instance demonstrated ‘exceptional’ circumstances why this should be
so in this case. For these reasons, based on the evidence before me, I
consider that the Councils housing target of 1,600 dwellings per annum16
(dpa) provides an appropriate figure for the housing requirement across the
District for the purposes of this appeal.
Housing Land Supply
36. During the Inquiry the Council presented a delivery trajectory for housing
sites over 5 years from 1 July 2019-30 June 2024 in line with the
requirements of paragraph 73 of the Framework.
37. The SHMA, January 2018, identifies that 32,000 new homes for the Council
are required for the period of the emerging local plan (2015 -2035). The
Councils 5 year land supply statement17 identifies that 8,353 net new
dwellings have been completed resulting in a surplus of 1,553 dwellings. This
is evidence of a buoyant local housing market.
16 Appendix 5 to Mr Hughes Proof of Evidence
17 Ibid
38. The Council has applied a buffer of 5% to ensure choice and competition in
the market in line with the Framework; this is not disputed by the appellant.
On this basis and accounting for the completions to date which is above the
anticipated level for the plan period, the Council estimate that for the
remainder of the plan period 23,647 homes are required. This amounts to a
total of 7,882 homes required for the 5 year period running from 1 July 2019-
30 June 2024.
39. According to the Council’s statement the housing trajectory identifies a 5 year
supply of 10,077 dwellings which is 2,195 dwellings more than is required for
this period and the Council can demonstrate 6.39 years supply for the next 5
years. This was subsequently revised down in written evidence submitted by
the Council’s witness to 9,511 dwellings equating to 6.03 years supply
following a review of the contribution of 2 sites.
40. I do not accept the appellant’s assertion that the ‘banking’ of early delivery in
excess of the annualised target is not compliant with the Guidance. I consider
that this is a sensible and reasonable approach in line with the essential thrust
of the Framework and PPG, (reference ID: 68-032-20190722). Accordingly,
subtracting the past over delivery provides a residual annualised requirement
of 1,576dpa.
41. The Glossary included in Annex 2 of the Framework includes a definition of
‘deliverable’ which is supported by further definition in the PPG. This
identifies that for sites to be considered deliverable they should be available
now with a realistic prospect of delivery within 5 years. Two closed lists are
set out in the definition. The first identifies sites which do not involve major
development and have planning permission and all sites with detailed
planning permission. These should be considered deliverable until permission
expires unless there is clear evidence that not all homes will be delivered
within 5 years. The second covers sites with outline planning permission for
major development which have been allocated in a development plan, have a
grant of permission in principle or is identified in a brownfield register. These
sites should only be considered deliverable where there is evidence that
housing completions will begin on site within 5 years, (my underlining).
42. The PPG goes into more detail on the requirements for sites to be considered
deliverable and highlights evidence of delivery as including progress actually
made to achieving reserved matters, links to a Planning Performance
Agreement (PPA) which identifies the steps to achieving reserved matters,
details which confirm the developer’s delivery intensions with anticipated start
and delivery dates, site assessment works and relevant information about
issues such as viability, ownership and /or funding bids for infrastructure. This
is not meant to be a definitive list but provides pointers to the prospects for
housing delivery.
43. The appellants raised additional concerns over the Council’s approach to the
calculation of supply together with more fundamental concerns over the
contribution of specific sites to the 5 year Housing Land Supply (HLS) I deal
with these matters in turn below.
44. I regard the Council’s quarterly monitoring and reporting following meetings
with its development partners involving moderation of anticipated delivery as
a logical and acceptable approach. The Council both in written evidence and
through the round table gave examples of how moderation was working in
practice. This approach would overcome the ‘trap’ which the appellants allege
the Council falls into in accepting the ‘optimistic’ assessments which can be
sometimes be made by developers and housebuilders. I do not entirely accept
the appellant’s criticism that the quarterly reporting mechanism employed by
the Council can inflate delivery rates18 and that they should be taken as an
opportunity to re-base the delivery programme for each quarter. It would be
difficult, to be able to measure the extent to which this could inflate supply on
a consistent basis during the plan period.
45. A considerable amount of research evidence drawing on Government and
national reports was supplied by the appellant demonstrating the intractable
issues inherent in the house building market which can frustrate delivery.
These identified concerns over lead in times, build out rates, ‘absorption’
rates, and competing interests of house builders on large sites.
46. The appellant provided tables on lead in times for major sites drawn from
national reports and an adjoining borough. However, I am more inclined to
accept the evidence presented in Matter 1019 of the Examination into the
emerging Local Plan which indicates lead in times for large sites of around
100-200 dwellings for 2 years and for sites of 100-500 dwellings is 3.3 years.
This information is based on the state of the local housing market and may
reflect that within Central Bedfordshire many sites are ‘greenfield’ where
construction is easier to commence than on urban sites which could include a
legacy of contamination and dated infrastructure and would be more difficult
to develop.
47. I have taken as the basis for my assessment, the tables and schedules
included in the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) on Housing Land
Supply which were informed by the round table discussion between the
parties at the public inquiry. For the major sites I have given considerable
attention to the opinions of both parties on how far progress is being made
against the definition of ‘deliverable’ contained in both the Framework and the
Guidance. Clearly on some sites it has been difficult to actually determine
what the final delivery programme would actually look like given their current
state of play, size, the range of development partners and for others their
location straddling administrative boundaries, e.g. Wixams or whether they
are greenfield with a minimum of issues such as contamination or old services
to address.
48. The SoCG identifies the main areas of difference between the parties on
allocated and large strategic sites, large unallocated sites, local plan strategic
allocations, small and emerging local plan allocations and both categories of
small sites which in total amounts to around 3000 units. However, aside from
the allocated and large sites, which I address below, the difference between
the parties under Scenario 120, which represents the most extreme case
suggested by the appellants, amounts to 750 dwellings for the whole of the 5
year period.
49. The appellant makes reference to the Examining Inspectors letter21 where
concerns were expressed over the strategic allocations. However, the
18 Mr Roberts Proof of Evidence paragraphs 3.8-3.10
19 CD 5.2.03
20 Table 1 SoCG
21CD 4.3.02 PINS letter to Central Bedfordshire Council -30 September 2019
schedule which was discussed between parties during the Inquiry reflects ‘live’
sites where building is either imminent or in progress. Only the site HT208,
land east of Biggleswade is included in both the calculation of the 5 year HLS
and referenced in the Examining Inspector’s letter as policy reference SA4. I
consider this site below.
50. My views are presented as only a snapshot in time of each site on their
prospects for housing within the next 5 years delivery. I deal with each in turn
below and suggest adjustments:
• HT005 Land at Chase Farm – this is a greenfield site with the benefit of an
outline planning permission with a PPA. Progress is being made which
includes the delivery of a spine road and the Council who own it anticipate
completing the sale transfer this year. However, I agree with Mr Roberts
that the anticipated delivery rate is ambitious and accordingly anticipate
that delivery will be delayed. I have deleted 96 dwellings from the 5 year
housing land supply on the assumption that completions will commence in
2022/23 (this is on top of the Council’s revised estimate).
• HT052 Land at Steepingley and Froghall Roads – both parties agree to the
removal of 50 dwellings. I have no reason to disagree.
• HT057 Site 1 - North of Houghton Regis – the details included in Matter
1022 highlight that implementation commenced in 2019. I consider that the
information supplied by the Council is sufficient evidence of developer
interest and that the construction programme over the next 5 years is in
line with the trajectory.
• HT058 – Site 2 - both parties agree the delivery figures for HT058i and
HTO58ii. For this site the difference between the parties is on HT058 Site 2
-Land west of Bidwell. The Council has provided convincing evidence in the
form of a series of reserved matters permissions which account for the
delivery of dwellings within the next 5 years23. However, I consider that
given the likely dates of outstanding reserved matters permission there is a
likelihood of some slippage but not the extent of considered by the
appellants. I consider that 200 units should be removed from the
trajectory.
• HT078 Clipstone Park - although this is a greenfield site involving several
different plots (HT 078a, 078b, 078c and HT 079i) the main point of
difference between the parties is the rate of delivery on HT078. There are
reserved matters permissions for 551 dwellings on sites identified in the
SoCG. The Council confirmed during the roundtable session that there
were no outstanding objections from the Drainage Board. Although the
appellant doubts the progress being made on the reserved matters
application for 402 dwellings, I consider that the submission of the
reserved matters application is in itself a sign of sufficient progress, in line
with Guidance, on this site to warrant justification of the Council’s figures.
The trajectory indicates no delivery until 2021/2022 which in these
circumstances is reasonable.
• HT 117 - Wixams – both parties agree with the trajectory for HT 117a, b, c.
The remaining part of the site whilst having the benefit of an outline
22 Statement of Common Ground on HLS
23 Proof of Mr Hughes para A4.26
permission does not have a reserved matters permission. Given the scale
of the site and its planning status, I consider that the Council’s trajectory is
too ambitious and that 160 units should be deleted from the 5 year supply
Large unallocated sites
• HT 148i Land opposite The Lane – although benefitting from an outline
permission there is no application for reserved matters. I am advised that
the completed section 106 agreement includes a build out programme
within the timeline of the trajectory. On that basis I consider that
commencement would be likely to be later than the trajectory implies but
that the site would still contribute in its entirety to the 5 year supply.
• HT 148b Land opposite playing fields and Mill Lane. Given that the site has
a section 106 agreement pursuant to a planning permission which includes
a build programme, I consider that this should be retained in the 5 year
housing land supply as it is evident that progress is being made to address
outstanding conditions.
• HT 136 Former Council leisure centre- this has the benefit of an outline
planning permission following the expiration of the original permission. I
consider that although framework contracts have been signed insufficient
progress has been made in respect of securing necessary approval of
reserved matters and so the whole site should be removed from the
Council’s trajectory (loss of 132 units).
• HT 208 Land east of Biggleswade – both parties accept that there are
issues with the delivery of the site regarding a ransom strip which the
Council’s indicated would push housing delivery towards years 4 and 5 of
the trajectory, reducing the sites contribution from 537 to 117 dwellings. I
think that the appellants approach is more realistic given the site
constraints and the concerns over the Examining Inspectors regarding the
Sustainability Appraisal. There is no evidence of progress regarding the
site’s planning status and accordingly I am taking out this site out of the
programme. This would result in the loss of 537 units (117 more than
anticipated in the Council’s programme).
• HT 118 (formerly 237) Thickthorn Farm, Wixams Southern extension - The
completed Section 106 agreement includes a build out programme and a
housebuilder is on board. I was advised during the roundtable discussion,
that contracts were due to be exchanged during the week of the Inquiry.
The appellants acknowledge that whilst progress is being made the build
rate programme anticipates 210 units in a single year. This is not, however,
evidenced from the trajectory. I consider that given the recent signing of
the agreement 60 units should be deleted from the trajectory to allow for
later commencement.
51. The Council considers that it has a supply equating to around 6.03 years
based on 9,511 units identified within its trajectory24. However, based on the
above analysis, I have deleted a further 770 units. If I were to allow for a
further reduction based on the appellant’s figure of 750 units for all the other
categories of sites in dispute included in Scenario 1, the supply would be
24 Mr Roberts Proof Addendum para
reduced by a total of 1,520 dwellings. On this basis, the Council would still be
able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.
52. Accordingly, in line with paragraph 11 d) of the Framework the ‘tilted
balance’25 is not engaged. My assessment of the planning merits of this
scheme will proceed against the policies of the development plan.
Landscape setting and character and appearance
53. There are two related aspects to this main issue. The first addresses the
impact of the proposals on the setting of Langford and the second which
concerns the integrity of the wider landscape.
54. The appeal site’s location beyond the northern edge of Langford’s settlement
boundary is not in dispute by the parties. Policies DM4, CS 14 High Quality
Development, CS16 Landscape and Woodland, DM3 High Quality Development
and DM14 Landscape and Woodland apply to this proposal. Together these
seek to preserve the character of the countryside as defined by the Landscape
Character Area (LCA), require development proposals to enhance landscapes
of lesser quality and to protect trees, woodland and hedgerows.
55. The appeal site forms part of the National Character Area of the Bedfordshire
and Cambridgeshire Claylands (88), the East of England Regional Typology,
defined as lowland farmlands. At District level the Central Bedfordshire LCA
2015 identifies the site as within the Lower Ivel Clay Valley (LCA4B) and
assesses the overall landscape character as ‘weak’. The appeal site does not
fall within any statutory landscape designations.
56. The Landscape Character Area 4B- identifies key characteristics including,
level open river valley, mixed land use of arable and improved pasture. In
particular the River Ivel and its fringing vegetation is described as contributing
to a sense of place and nature conservation and views of /towards the river
corridor is described as just one of two visually sensitive areas.
57. The appeal site is flat without any specific features of note but in this regard is
characteristic of land within the Lower Ivel Clay Valley character area. The
site’s largely open boundaries to both the east and north results in the site
forming an integral part of this landscape. When viewed from within the site
it can be seen as being contiguous with the arable fields to the east across
Langford Road and extending to the embanked A1 road to the east. This is a
landscape of arable fields broken by the occasional clump of hedges and
trees. To the west of the site beyond a paddock lies the River Ivel with its
distinct wooded edge. The site’s boundary on this western edge includes a
broken hedgerow, trees with a post and rail fence.
58. The appellants argue that the proposed scheme would be consistent with,
another chapter in the development of Langford which has been characterised
by fingers of development extending into the countryside along frontages to
principal roads which are subsequently backfilled. This has resulted in the
range of architectural styles with frontage buildings pre-dating the dates of
those which infill behind. However, the appeal proposals would break with the
organic form of growth and would extend the village into the arable fields to
the north. Instead of being a finger of development it would be of
considerable scale which could not be readily addressed through the
25 Defined by paragraph 11 of the Framework 2019
mitigation identified in the illustrative framework plan included with the
application. In this sense the proposals would cause harm to the setting of
Langford. The rational which underpins Policy DM4 in seeking to contain new
development within ‘settlement envelopes’ is clear. The proposals would run
counter to this resulting in harm to the landscape setting of the settlement.
59. I now turn to the issue of the impact of the proposals on the character and
appearance of the area. I do not accept the appellant’s assertion that the
site lies within a ‘zone of transition’ which extends from the northern
settlement boundary along the west side of Langford Road from Ivel cottages
and includes Langford Road Farm, Running Water Farm, kennels, small groups
of houses and the Biggleswade Rugby clubhouse up to the A1 road bridge.
Whilst it may be less open than the land on the east side of Langford Road the
implication of its description as a ‘zone in transition’ is that the area is
somehow a fractured landscape or a ‘peri-urban’ area which displays signs of
stress. The aerial photographs submitted as part of the landscape impact
assessments by both parties identify that the west side retains its largely
arable character and where there is development this is limited in scale.
60. To the east of the site there is an extensive footpath network. Footpath FP18
extends east from Langford Road over the rail line and links to the newly
promoted Biggleswade loop which continues on bridleways. To the west of the
appeal site along the western bank of the River Ivel there is an Anglers path
and a new permissive path on its eastern side which will form part of the
Kingfisher Way extending south from Jordan’s Mill. These routes were walked
as part of my unaccompanied and accompanied site visits.
61. Within this flat and homogeneous landscape any development would
represents a stark change to its character. This requires that special attention
is required if new development is to preserve the inherent qualities of this
landscape. Whilst I regard the ‘Development Framework Plan’ which was
submitted for illustrative purposes only, it does indicate how the landscape
impact of the proposed housing scheme could be mitigated. This would be
through the introduction and strengthening of boundary planting in line with
guidance for new development included in the LCA. Accordingly, I have given
these measures further consideration below.
62. The main parties disagree on the extent to which the landscape impacts of the
proposals would be contained. Along the route of bridleway (BW) 52, the site
is prominent in many places when approaching from the west although this is
not consistent given the occasional patches of shrubs and trees which break
up views. The more critical views are experienced from the east along
footpath 17, which runs parallel to the railway line, FP1 as it returns towards
Wychway Farm and along FP18 on its approach towards Langford Road Farm
from the east. These are identified in the Council’s viewpoints A-H and K.
63. However, further east beyond the rail line, towards the pathways which form
the proposed Biggleswade loop and continuing along the network of
bridleways (BW52, 53 and 54), the site’s prominence diminishes caused in
part by the low embankment to the rail line, clumps of trees and distance.
Accordingly, I am inclined to agree with the appellants that views from the
east would be largely contained by the rail line.
64. However, notwithstanding this, the defining feature of this area is the contrast
between the horizontal sweep of arable fields which extend to the vertical rise
of the well treed boundaries along the river corridor. This would be lost
through the development on this site at a point where the river meanders
close to the appeal site. Although I acknowledge that some landscaping along
the frontage as suggested in the illustrative Framework Plan could mitigate
views from the east, the stark contrast in this landscape accentuated by
natural vegetation would be compromised. I consider this would have an
adverse impact on the landscape character of the area resulting in harm.
65. On my accompanied site visit, I walked along the east bank of the River Ivel
along the proposed route of Kingfisher Way. From this position, the site would
appear visible at several points. Whilst the Framework plan indicated that the
western part of the site could include an ecological and flood attenuation area
this form of mitigation would not be sufficient to overcome the harm to the
area’s character and appearance. I do not accept the appellant’s arguments
that the proposals would have the same impact as the newly completed
development at Ewbank corner. The appeal proposals would be closer due to
the meander of the river and would have greater impact.
66. To conclude on this issue, whilst the proposals could result in a strengthening
of the field boundaries, I consider that they would have an unacceptable
impact on the setting of Langford and the landscape qualities which underpin
the Lower Ivel Clay Valley Character Area. In this regard, I conclude that the
proposal would cause harm and be in conflict with adopted Policies CS14,
CS16, DM3, DM4 and DM14 of the CSDMP 2009. Furthermore, they would be
in conflict with paragraphs 127 and 170 of the Framework.
Infrastructure Provision
67. The Council’s third reason for refusal refers to the absence of a legal
agreement to offset the infrastructure required to mitigate the impacts of the
proposed development. A completed Unilateral Undertaking (UU) made under
section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, as amended 1990 dated
24 January 2020 was submitted to the Inquiry. The UU makes provision for
35% of the proposed housing to be affordable with additional financial
contributions for early years, lower, middle and upper schools in the area,
indoor and outdoor sports facilities, a local library and waste management.
68. I am satisfied that the UU provides an appropriate mechanism to provide the
infrastructure required to mitigate the impacts of the development. I address
whether the UU meets the tests of the Framework and the CIL Regulations
below. The appeal scheme would therefore comply with Policies CS2 and CS7
of the Core Strategy which seek developer contributions from developments
which necessitate improved infrastructure and affordable housing provision.
Other Matters
69. There was a clear difference between the parties with regard to the delivery of
affordable housing units. Having considered the evidence I acknowledge that
the affordability ratio across the District may be increasing and may even be
worse than the national picture as identified by the appellant’s witnesses. Mr
Parker for the appellant considers that in his opinion there is a consensus
within national policy, guidance and a range of other sources including appeal
decisions that the provision of affordable housing should be accorded
significant weight. Within Central Bedfordshire the appellant considers that,
the SHMA underestimates the level of affordability and that despite a
requirement for 400 affordable dpa the Council is underdelivering26.
70. What is clear from the evidence presented by the parties is that there are
issues in how the Council reports affordable housing completions. I consider
that the Council has had a historical problem of under reporting rather than
under delivering. Based on evidence presented in chief in how affordable
housing completions are systematically reported I am inclined to agree with
the Council’s witness that 1,75327 affordable homes which are included in the
Councils annual monitoring reports have been delivered in the last 4 years.
This is above the figures included in the ‘live tables’ which the appellant
stated and in keeping with the figures identified in the SHMA.
71. I note the comments of my Inspector colleague, in her appeals decision on
the Broad Street, Clifton28 that the provision of affordable homes was ‘a
significant social benefit’ which carries considerable weight. However, it is
unclear the context for this decision and whether regard was made to an
overall assessment of housing land supply and what other matters were
addressed through the planning balance. On this basis, whilst I recognises the
importance of the inclusion of affordable housing in the appeal scheme, I
place only moderate weight on this matter.
Planning Obligation
72. The Framework confirms that planning obligations should only be sought to
mitigate the effects of unacceptable development therefore making it
acceptable. The Framework in paragraph 56 and CIL Regulation 122 (2) set
out 3 ‘tests’ for seeking planning obligations. They must be necessary to
make the development acceptable in planning terms, be directly related to the
development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the
development.
73. A Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) compliance statement provided by the
Council concludes that the obligations meet the tests of the Framework and
CIL Regulations. However, in the light of my findings above, it is unnecessary
for me to consider this matter further.
Planning Balance and Overall Conclusion
73. Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that
the determination of applications for planning permission must be in
accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. Paragraph 11d) of the Framework would be an important material
consideration if there were no relevant development plan policies or the
policies which are most important for determining the appeals were out of
date.
74. In my consideration of the local policy context, I concluded that there were 5
most important policies against which this proposal should be considered,
Policies CS14, CS16, DM3, DM4 and DM14 of the CSDMP 2009. Accordingly,
apart from Policy DM4 which I accord only moderate weight all are accorded
significant weight. Together these combine to form a coherent framework to
26 Mr Parker proof p38
27 ID.7 Affordable housing returns for 2016-2019
28 CD 4.1.28
protect the rural areas which lie beyond settlement boundaries from
development which would not preserve or enhance its distinct character. This
is the determining issue of this appeal.
74. I do acknowledge, however, that the proposals would bring benefits for the
wider community which would include the provision of a play area,
strengthened boundary planting and improved opportunities for local ecology
as identified in the illustrative framework plan. Furthermore, it is considered
that the scheme would bring some benefits to the local economy including
short term construction jobs, financial contributions to the Council from the
New Homes Bonus and future Council tax payments and support for local
services from the spend of 55 new households. Furthermore, the scheme
would deliver 19 affordable homes which is a distinct benefit in its own right. I
attribute these benefits significant weight.
75. I regard the measures (other than those which address affordable housing)
included in the UU as having a neutral effect as they are required to mitigate
the impacts of the development.
76. When these benefits are set against the adverse impacts which would result
to the landscape setting of Langford and the negative impacts on the area’s
landscape character, I conclude that the harm that would result would be
significant and outweighs the schemes purported advantages. The proposals
would not be in accordance with those policies of the development plan which
I accord significant weight, as outlined above. I therefore conclude that the
proposals would result in an unacceptable degree of harm, be contrary to
adopted Policies CS14, CS16, DM3, DM4 and DM14 of the CSDMP 2009 and
furthermore, in conflict with paragraphs 127 and 170 of the Framework. For
these reasons I dismiss this appeal.
Stephen Wilkinson
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Mr Alexander Booth QC of Counsel instructed by Central Bedfordshire
Council
He called:
Mr Phillip Hughes BA MRTPI Director, PHD Chartered Town Planners Ltd
DMS, MCMI
Mr John Jeffcock BA (Hons), Associate, Michelle Bolger, Expert Landscape
NZILA(Registered), CMLI, MLA Consultancy
Mr Jonathan Lee BSc, Managing Director, Opinion Research Services
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Ms Thea Osmund -Smith of Counsel instructed by Jason Tait BA (Hons) DIP
TP MRTPI, Director of [APPELLANT]
She called:
Ms Silke Gruner BHons Associate Landscape Architect, CSA
Landscape Architect CMLI
Mr Tom Baker BSc (Hons) Associate Director, Savills
MSc MRTPI
Mr Alex J Roberts BSc Director DLP Strategic Planning Resource Unit
(Joint Honours) Associate RTPI
Mr Jason Tait BA (Hons) Director, [APPELLANT]
Dip TP. MRTPI
Mr David Parker BA (Hons) Chairman Pioneer Properties Ltd
MSc, DMS, FCIH
Interested Parties
Mr Ian Bond Ward and Town Councillor for Biggleswade
Mr John Shipman Vice Chair of Langford Parish Council, Chair of the
Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
Mr John English Campaign to Protect Rural England
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS PRESENTED DURING THE INQUIRY
ID.1 Letter from Central Bedfordshire Council dated 9 January 2020
ID.2 Opening Statement on behalf of the Appellant
ID.3 Opening Submissions on behalf of Central Bedfordshire Council
ID.4 Representations from Mr John Shipman of Langford Parish Council (JMS Ver3)
ID.5 Representations from Mr John English of Campaign to Protect Rural England
ID.6 Summary note from Mr John Shipman on the Langford Neighbourhood Plan
ID.7 Central Bedfordshire Council note on Affordable Housing Completions for
financial years 2016-2019
ID.8 Extract from MCHLG on net additional dwellings in Central Bedfordshire
submitted by the Appellant
ID.9 Summary note from Mr Lee of ORS on adjustments to population estimates
ID.10 Response from Mr Baker of Savills in respect of the Mr Lees note
ID.11 Completed Unilateral Undertaking, dated 24 January 2020
ID.12 Closing Submissions on behalf of Central Bedfordshire Council
ID.13 Closing Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
ID.14 Decision of the High Court in Wavendon Properties Ltd v SSHCLG and Milton
Keynes Council [2019] EWHC 1524 (Admin)