R Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Borough Council of Wellingborough
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Patterson |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 683 (Admin) |
| Date | 08 February 2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/4541/2015 |
[2016] EWHC 683 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Priory Courts
33 Bull Street
Birmingham
West Midlands
B4 6DS
Mrs Justice Patterson DBE
CO/4541/2015
and
Mr Barrett appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Williams appeared on behalf of the First Defendant
Mr Crean appeared on behalf of the Second Defendant
In a Decision Letter dated 14th August 2015 the First Defendants dismissed an appeal by the claimant against the failure on the part of the Second Defendant to determine a planning application for 75 dwellings with associated access at Easton Lane, Bozeat, Wellingborough. The Second Defendant later gave putative reasons for refusal. This is a challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act by the claimant to the decision letter. The appeal had been heard at a public inquiry which sat from 30th June until 3rd July 2015.
The Inspector's Decision
The Inspector considered that there were two main issues in the appeal before him:
(i) 3. whether there was a 5 year housing land supply available within the housing marketing area;
(ii) 4. whether the development would have an unacceptable impact in rural area having regard to the development plan policies.
On the first issue the inspector concluded that a 4.25 year housing land supply was a reasonably robust approximation of housing land supply for the purposes of the appeal (see paragraph 24 of the decision letter. In the rest of this judgement I shall refer to the decision letter as DL and when followed by a number that is the paragraph number in the decision letter).
The Inspector continued at DL25 and 26 as follows:
"25. With a shortfall in the five-year housing land supply, paragraph 49 of NPPF states that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date, and it is necessary to consider applications for housing in the context of a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In this case, the relevant policies are 1, 7, 9 and 10 of NNCSS — which establish the amount and strategic distribution of required housing, and policies G4, G6, H4 and H9 of the Borough Council of Wellingborough Local Plan (BCWLP) which seek to control the siting of new housing development.
26. Paragraph 14 of NPPF urges the approval of development proposals without delay where the development plan policies are out of date, unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Therefore, the question now arises as to whether the proposed scheme can be seen to represent sustainable development and would the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts."
The Inspector concluded in DL37 that the scheme did not constitute sustainable development.
The Inspector reached that conclusion as a result of his reasoning at DL 28 and the following paragraphs:
"28. At the inquiry evidence was put forward of what could be seen to be the benefits of the scheme in terms of sustainability. The scheme would offer a major contribution towards providing affordable housing in the Borough, it would have the potential to refresh the demographic profile of the village and thereby enhance the vitality of village social and cultural life. There would also be the economic benefit of employment during the construction phase, and an enlarged pool of disposable income amongst the resident population thereafter. Also, there is scope to enhance the biodiversity on the site with planned landscape planting and creation of habitat for wildlife. These claimed benefits are largely at the local scale of the village itself.
29. Other benefits claimed for the scheme are further support for the local shops, pub and the primary school. However, whilst additional trade or business is likely to be beneficial, no evidence was brought to demonstrate that any of these local services are in decline or at risk of closure such that additional business is required to ensure they are retained. That is, this cannot be seen to be an overriding concern.
30. Although the demographic profile of the village is seemingly skewed towards a high proportion of people aged over 65, the profile does not appear to me to be so unbalanced that it is in urgent need of some sort of redress. It is possible that the normal 'churn' in the local housing market could create opportunities for a younger age group to move into the village amongst the existing housing stock over time. Indeed, and depending on the house types constructed, an influx of 75 new, younger, households over a short period could give rise to different problems for the social mix of the village. Finally, the long, cul-de-sac form of the proposed scheme, with no road or pedestrian connections indicated on the Framework Plan into the present built up area, other than via the site access off Easton Lane, would mean that the residents on this scheme may find it difficult to integrate effectively with the social life in the village. That is, I do not consider the claimed social benefits to be particularly persuasive, and certainly not so great as to override any possible negative connotations.
31. I acknowledge that no community or economy — either urban or rural — could be entirely self contained, such that travel beyond walking distances to access necessary services and facilities would not be required. There are bus services in the village which would give access to shops and employment opportunities in the wider area, but the services are relatively limited, and would not offer full flexibility in travel times for those who would be dependant on public transport to travel to work in the larger villages and towns, especially in the evenings and weekends. For the same reason, the bus service does not represent a viable alternative for journeys to other places for entertainment, recreation or social purposes. Distances to other locations, and the busy nature of the traffic on the A509, indicate that use of cycles as an alternative is not a realistic for many, especially in the winter and in the dark.
32. Even allowing for the greater use of internet shopping and broadband-based home working, without any commensurate increase in opportunities for work, shopping and leisure in the village, the residents of the proposed development are inevitably going to rely quite heavily upon the use of private cars to access a range of shops, services and facilities which are regarded as reasonably necessary to modern life. I am sure residents of the planned SUEs and the larger villages would also use cars for many journeys, but these are likely to be shorter and / or fewer, where the housing is closer to employment, shops and services or where there are more public transport options.
33. NPPF takes a less restrictive view on where it may be appropriate to build, and using the hierarchy of settlements to apportion growth set out in NNCSS is not fully in accord with the NPPF. Indeed, encouragement is given to enhance and maintain the vitality of rural communities, and Planning Practice Guidance specifically notes that blanket policies restricting housing development in some settlements and preventing others from expanding should be avoided, unless robust evidence can support such limitations5. In this respect, BCWLP policies G4, G6, H4 and H9 are also not fully in accord with current government policy and, all other things being equal, a close adherence to the Village Policy Lines in that plan may not be appropriate. That is, whilst the proposed scheme does not accord with the local plan policies, there are material considerations which indicate that a decision could be taken which would be contrary to those policies.
34. However, this does not present 'carte blanche' for development in the rural area. NPPF supports the creation of healthy communities in mixed (emphasis added) developments which support social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs. In this case, the proposed scheme would add only to the housing stock without any commensurate growth in the social, cultural, economic or employment opportunities in the locality; either in the village on its own, or as a part of a group of inter-related settlements which together are recognised as a reasonably self-contained and self-supporting community. The appeal scheme would reinforce the role of the village as a dormitory or commuter settlement, with the population largely reliant on accessing jobs, shops, support services, recreation and leisure facilities elsewhere.
35. Taking a broader view, the NNCSS is not inconsistent with the philosophy of NPPF. The policies of the NNCSS are formulated around a strategy of distributing growth between a range of settlements structured around a hierarchy. Whilst part of the rationale for this may have been to specifically restrict housing growth in some rural settlements, it is also a strategy for concentrating growth where it has the greatest opportunity for supporting or creating self-sufficient societies and economies. NPPF looks to promote a low-carbon economy and to direct growth to where the need for travel is minimised and where the use of sustainable modes of travel is maximised. Inevitably, such conditions are found in the larger settlements. Permitting growth in small villages which are at some distance from employment, larger shops and services and leisure facilities is not a strategy for sustainable development. It is entirely appropriate to direct the bulk of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jelson Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another
...EWHC 267 (Admin) at paragraph [52] per Supperstone J; and, (Gladman) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2016] EWHC 683 (Admin) at paragraph [7(v)] per Patterson J. 11 In Shropshire ( ibid) Mrs Justice Lang summed up the authorities in the following way: "27. In......
-
Shropshire Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Magnus Charles Mowat and Another (Interested Parties)
...for the purposes of this appeal" (DL33)." 25 In R (Gladman) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2016] EWHC 683 (Admin), Patterson J. stated: "7 … (v) The Inspector in determining the appeal application was obliged in this case to address the housing requirement ......