appeal reference: app/h1705/a/13/2200861 local planning
TRANSCRIPT
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78
PLANNING PROOF OF EVIDENCE
MR CHRISTOPHER MARTIN REES MRTPI
ON BEHALF OF WATES DEVELOPMENTS LTD
LAND AT KENNEL FARM, BASINGSTOKE
Appeal Reference: APP/H1705/A/13/2200861
Local Planning Authority Reference: BDB/77382
Savills Planning 2 Charlotte Place Southampton SO14 0TB October 2013
Page 2 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
Contents
PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................... 3
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 4
2. SITE PROMOTION HISTORY ........................................................................................... 7
3. PLANNING APPLICATION PROCESS ...................................................................... 10
4. THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSALS TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 12
5. HOUSING LAND SUPPLY .............................................................................................. 15
6. PUTATIVE REASON FOR REFUSAL NO 1 ............................................................. 21
7. PUTATIVE REASON FOR REFUSAL NO 5 ............................................................. 26
8. PUTATIVE REASON FOR REFUSAL NO 6 ............................................................. 32
9. RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS ........................................ 36
10. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 41
Page 3 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
Preface Christopher Rees will say:
• I am Christopher Martin Rees, Director of Savills UK based in Southampton. I am a Chartered
Town Planner with 10 years post qualification experience and a Member of Savills Strategic Land
Group. I hold a degree in City & Regional Planning and a Diploma in Town Planning.
• I have a wide range of town planning experience, including site promotion, the preparation and
submission of technical supporting evidence to support Local Development Frameworks, project
management, submission of major planning applications, negotiation of planning matters, housing
land supply and appearance at Examinations in Public and Inquiry.
• Savills was founded in 1855 and became a limited company in 1987, with a full listing on the
London Stock Exchange in 1988, becoming Savills plc. Savills is a constituent company of the
FTSE 500 on the London Stock Exchange and is a leading international firm of property services
consultants. Based in the West End of London, the firm has 107 offices and employs over 3,500
people throughout the UK.
• I am fully familiar with the Appeal site and its surroundings, and advised the Appellant in relation to
the promotion of land over a number of years through the Basingstoke & Deane Local Plan
process and subsequent Development Control process.
• The evidence which I have prepared and provided for this appeal in this Proof of Evidence is true
and has been prepared and is given in accordance with the guidance of my professional institution
and I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions.
Page 4 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
1. Introduction
The Proposal
1.1 The Proposal submitted is outlined within the Appellant’s Statement of Case (CD/1.3) of 23
September 2013 and as agreed between the parties in the Statement of Common Ground
dated 7 October 2013 (CD/1.5).
Savills 1.2 Savills has represented the Appellant regarding planning matters on this site (Kennel Farm)
since 2009, having promoted the land through each stage of the Strategic Housing Land
Availability Assessment, Core Strategy process, Local Plan process and advised on the
formation and submission of the Outline Planning Application in December 2012.
Scope of Evidence 1.3 This proof provides evidence on behalf of the Appellant, Wates Developments Ltd, in relation
to planning matters including the site promotion history, National and Local Planning Policy
and other material considerations including housing land supply.
1.4 The proof will primarily address putative Reason for Refusal Number 1, in respect of
perceived prematurity, Number 5 in respect of the scale of the development proposed and
matters concerning the Section 106 Legal Agreement, which is covered within Reason for
Refusal Number 6.
1.5 Cross referencing will be made to the Proofs of Evidence submitted by Mr Bevis in respect of
Highways and Access (Reason for Refusal Number 2), Ms Shelton with regard to Landscape
and Visual Impact (Reason for Refusal Number 3) and that submitted by Ms Spray in respect
of Biodiversity on behalf of the Appellant (Reason for Refusal Number 4).
Matters Outstanding and Common Ground
1.6 A Statement of Common Ground has been agreed between the Appellant and the LPA
(CD/1.5).
Page 5 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
1.7 Where matters are still outstanding between the Appellant and the LPA these are addressed
in the various Proofs of Evidence submitted on behalf of the Appellant. The Appellant will
continue to seek a resolution to outstanding matters where possible via the Legal Agreement,
condition or otherwise.
1.8 As set out within the Statement of Common Ground submitted to the Inquiry, there are a
number of principal areas of common ground between the Local Planning Authority and the
Appellant, including:
• The Appeal Site’s consistent identification within the Strategic Housing Land Availability
Assessment as a Category 1 site since May 2010, and its identification with both the Pre-
Submission Core Strategy (January 2012 now quashed) and the Pre-Submission Local
Plan (August 2013) as a suitable and deliverable site for residential development required
to come forward early in the Plan Period.
• That the County Council Highways Department and Highways Agency confirm that the
Appeal proposal is acceptable in transport terms.
• That the Council has no objection to the Appeal proposal with regard to matters relating to
highways safety; the design of the site access junction; highways capacity and traffic
impact; and the principle of residential development in this location.
• That as of April 2012 and April 2013, there exists a ‘serious and significant’ shortfall of
housing land supply within the Borough, when judged against the emerging Locally
Derived Requirement to be tested at Examination and the former Regional Strategy
requirement. As such, the Council cannot satisfy the requirement of the NPPF to maintain
a rolling supply of 5 years’ worth of deliverable housing sites.
1.9 My evidence follows the following order:
• Section 2.0: Site Promotion History
• Section 3.0: Planning Application process
• Section 4.0: The Conformity of the Proposals to the Development Plan
• Section 5.0: Housing Land Supply
• Section 6.0: Putative Reason for Refusal No 1
• Section 7.0: Putative Reason for Refusal No 5
• Section 8.0: Putative Reason for Refusal No 6
• Section 9.0: Response to the Third Party Representations
• Section 10.0: Summary and Conclusions
1.10 I demonstrate that the Proposal is supported by both the National Planning Policy Framework
Page 6 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
and emerging Local Plan, and that the significant benefits of allowing the Appeal far outweigh
any adverse impacts in doing so.
Page 7 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
2. Site Promotion History
2.1 The land subject to this Appeal has been promoted initially through the Basingstoke & Deane
Core Strategy process, and more recently through the Basingstoke & Deane Local Plan
process. The Appeal Site has since September 2011 (Committee Report CD/9.8), been
identified by the Local Planning Authority as a future housing allocation required to meet the
housing need and demand of the Borough.
2.2 Following an initial Core Strategy Issues & Options Consultation in March 2008, the Council
prepared and published its draft Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) for
consultation in September 2008. Listed as Site Reference BAS114, land at Kennel Farm was
grouped with additional land (not forming part of this Appeal), and identified as a ‘Category 1
Site’. This assessment process and categorisation of the site concluded that the site should
be considered further as a possible future housing allocation through the LDF process.
2.3 A further period of consultation on the SHLAA took place in May-June 2010, with Version 4
published for public consultation as part of the scrutiny process by Members. Again, the land
subject to this Appeal was judged by the Local Planning Authority to be a Category 1 site, and
moreover, to have a capacity of approximately 350 dwellings.
2.4 Following the completion of the site assessment work to inform the Core Strategy, the
findings were presented to the Planning and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee
in September 2011. The Committee Paper included a list of those sites to be identified within
the Pre-Submission Core Strategy and provided an opportunity for scrutiny of those sites, the
process undertaken to select them and for both Councillors and members of the public to
raise any particular issues. Site reference BAS114 was included as a proposed Reserve
Allocation for approximately 350 dwellings.
2.5 Having considered the emerging spatial strategy and site selection fully, in January 2012 the
Borough Council published its Pre-Submission Core Strategy for consultation, inclusive of
land subject to this Appeal as a Reserve Allocation for approximately 350 dwellings as set out
within Policy SS3.1.
2.6 From an initial consultation in September 2008 through to January 2012, the land subject to
this Appeal had therefore been fully assessed by the LPA and been subject to full public and
stakeholder scrutiny. During this period of assessment, the Borough Council had concluded
Page 8 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
that there were no technical reasons why the land could not come forward, and when judged
against the alternatives in respect of landscape, biodiversity and accessibility, the site was
deemed suitable and appropriate to deliver approximately 350 dwellings.
2.7 Following the challenge by the Manydown Company and subsequent judgement of the High
Court to quash the Pre-Submission Core Strategy publication in April 2012, there was a
period of delay during which time the Appellant entered into Pre-Application discussions with
the Borough Council and extensive Community Consultation regarding the merits of a
Planning Application and the scope and form of that Application.
2.8 It is a fact that there is insufficient land within the defined settlement boundaries of the towns
and villages to meet the emerging housing requirement for the Plan Period, and as such, the
Borough Council has been required to assess the suitability of available Greenfield sites in
order to identify sufficient land to meet its housing needs.
2.9 In January 2013, Members of the Planning & Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee
were presented with the site selection process for new Greenfield Allocations required to
meet an annual requirement of between 730 dpa and 770 dpa, which had increased from the
previous 594 dpa deemed appropriate within the Pre-Submission Core Strategy.
2.10 The Committee Paper (CD/9.10), identified that the Appeal site should no longer be held in
Reserve, but elevated to a baseline allocation and for it to deliver housing completions within
the first 5 years of the Plan Period. At the same time, the Council reduced the capacity of the
site from 350 dwellings it had previously concluded as being sound since May 2010, down to
250 dwellings. For the reasons set out within Section 7 of this proof, it is shown that the
judgement upon which this reduction in capacity was based was flawed; a point accepted in
writing by the Local Planning Authority in correspondence dated 1 May 2013 (CD/10.9).
2.11 More recently and in advance of the Local Plan Pre-Submission draft being published for
consultation on 23 August 2013, the merits and suitability of the Appeal site had been further
scrutinised as part of a series of meetings of the Planning & Infrastructure Overview and
Scrutiny Committee held on 26 June, 2, 3, 4, 15 and 16 July 2013, at Cabinet on 22 July 2013
and at Full Council on 25 July 2013.
2.12 Following this extensive committee process and assessment of the future Greenfield
allocations when assessed against all alternatives, the Borough Council continues to identify
the Appeal Site as being suitable, deliverable and required to provide housing completions
within the Borough within the first 5 years of the Plan Period. Despite this strong
Page 9 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
endorsement from the Borough Council, its Committee System and a recommendation to
Approve the Outline Planning Application from the Borough Council Officers, the
Development Control Committee resolved to refuse the Application on 19 June 2013.
2.13 With regard to the relationship of the Appeal Site and the wider context, in conjunction with
the proposed allocation at the Basingstoke Golf Club, the south west area of the Town has
been identified by the LPA within the emerging Local Plan for large scale growth to support
and deliver the housing requirements during the short and medium term.
2.14 Immediately to the north of the Appeal site, the Old Down Park provides in land use planning
terms a functional relationship of the urban settlement with the existing residential
development at Kempshott to the north, acting as formal and adopted Open Space.
2.15 With the Appeal Site located on the southern boundary of the adopted Open Space, the
relationship between the Appeal Site and the urban settlement mirrors that which already
exists to the east of the A30, where Beggarwood Park lies between Hatch Warren to the north
and the residential area of Beggarwood to the south. The Appeal site is not therefore
divorced from the urban settlement by open countryside, but as per the east of the A30,
provides for a residential extension to the Town in an area earmarked for growth and on the
southern fringe of formal and adopted Open Space.
Page 10 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
3. Planning Application Process
3.1 On 17 April 2012, Savills prepared and submitted a Pre-Application submission to the
Borough Council seeking comments on an Outline Planning Application for 325 dwellings,
supported by an illustrative masterplan, Landscape Briefing Note and LVIA Methodology,
extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Vision Strategy document.
3.2 While it was highlighted that only access would be sought for approval, with all other matters
reserved for a later date, the Appellant provided information concerning housing mix and an
illustrative layout to inform the Council’s consideration of the pre-application submission.
3.3 As per the responses received from the various internal departments within the Borough
Council, it was acknowledged that the inability to demonstrate a 5 year land supply would be
a material factor, in addition to the applicant demonstrating new connections from the site to
the surrounding area and addressing other matters such as foul water capacity.
3.4 This Pre-Application process was informed by a comprehensive public consultation exercise
held on 17 and 19 May 2012, where the local community and local interest groups were
invited to attend an Exhibition held at the Hatch Warren Community Centre. This public
consultation process was supplemented by a meeting with the Old Down and Beggarwood
Wildlife Group held on 4 July 2012, with Local Members and Officers of the Borough Council
in attendance.
3.5 This extensive pre-application process allowed the Community to engage with the Appellant
and its advisors in considering the proposal and ultimately informed the Planning Application
made in December 2012. Of note, the landscape buffer widths shown at the Exhibition and
as part of the Pre-Application submission were set at a minimum of 15 metres from the tree
belts to the north and west of the built form. As a direct result of the consultation exercise and
taking on board the comments received, the widths of these landscape buffers were extended
to a minimum of 20m and more in places.
3.6 In respect of the connectivity of the Appeal Site, there was a judgement to be made between
the promotion of new pedestrian connections, against what was considered by the Old Down
and Beggarwood Wildlife Group the potential impact on the SINCs to the north and west.
This issue alone was discussed at length prior to submission of the Planning Application and
it was agreed with Officers that via the use of new planting, the pedestrian connections would
Page 11 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
be directed to the north west corner of the Appeal Site and to the north east along the A30 via
a new footpath. At the same time, a new east/ west pedestrian connection could be facilitated
through the northern buffer providing an alternative for pedestrians to walk from the A30 to the
Roman Road while avoiding the SINC.
3.7 The effectiveness of this pre-application process and consultation by the Appellant is no more
evident than in the recommendation to approve the Planning Application by the LPA in June
2013.
Page 12 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
4. The Conformity of the Proposals to the Development Plan
4.1 It is acknowledged that the Appeal Site lies outside of the settlement boundary for
Basingstoke as per the adopted Local Plan (2006), and therefore is subject to Countryside
Policies.
4.2 In determining this Appeal, regard will be had to Section 38(6) of the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that proposals be determined in accordance
with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In respect of
those material considerations pertinent to this Appeal and the weight to be afforded to those
material considerations, it is considered on balance, these outweigh any conflict with the
existing Local Plan and restraint on development within the Countryside.
4.3 As set out within Para 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (CD/4.1), the golden
thread running through the national framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable
development, further supported by the objective to boost significantly the supply of housing
(Para 47).
4.4 Paragraph 14 continues, that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies
are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing
so would significantly demonstrably outweigh the benefits. It is shown within this Proof of
Evidence and that submitted in respect of Highways, Landscape and Ecology on behalf of the
Appellant, that benefits would not be significantly, or demonstrably outweighed by any
impacts.
4.5 As set out within Section 5 of this Proof of Evidence and Section 5 of the Statement of
Common Ground (CD/1.5), it is agreed the Borough Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year
land supply with the shortfall both ‘serious’ and ‘significant’ and thus, as per Para 49 of the
NPPF the relevant policies within the 2006 Local Plan cannot be considered up-to-date.
Combined with the absence of an up to date Local Plan, significant weight should be afforded
to the NPPF as a material consideration on the determination of this Appeal.
4.6 A further material consideration is the Ministerial Statement ‘Planning for Growth’, issued by
the Rt Hon Greg Clark MP on 23 March 2011. Within that statement, the Minister sets out the
Page 13 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
Government’s clear expectation is that ‘the answer to development and growth should
wherever possible be ‘yes’, except where this would compromise the key sustainable
development principles set out in national planning policy’ (CD/4.2).
4.7 The promotion of sustainable economic growth and delivering a significant boost of housing
has most recently been material in the determination of the Land North of Marnel Park
Appeal, where both the Secretary of State and the Inspector gave weight to these material
considerations in allowing the Appeal. In doing so, the Secretary of State agreed with the
Inspector that in the context of a failing land supply evident within Basingstoke and Deane
Borough, there is no justification for an argument based upon prematurity (Para 16, SoS
Decision CD/11.1).
4.8 In the context of the emerging Local Plan, the LPA has undertaken a significant period of
consultation on those Greenfield sites it deems the most sustainable and appropriate to come
forward to meet the future housing requirements of the Borough. In this context, the Appeal
Site has been identified within the Pre-Submission Local Plan, with its identification supported
by the outputs of this public consultation and findings of the Sustainability Appraisal, as being
one of those Greenfield sites required to come forward to meet the short term housing
requirement.
4.9 One of the principal background documents prepared by the LPA to support its emerging
Local Plan was the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (Version 7), published in
January 2013. Appendix 4 of the SHLAA provides individual assessments of sites with
potential for housing outside of the settlement boundaries and the associated maps show the
extent of the sites considered. This process identified Category 1 Sites, which were
considered worthy of further consideration for inclusion as strategic allocations in the Local
Plan, and Category 2 Site, which were not considered suitable.
4.10 Kennel Farm was identified as a Category 1 site (ref BAS 114) along with 17 other potential
sites for inclusion within the Local Plan. Having identified 17 potential urban extensions to the
Town, the LPA narrowed these to 9 Greenfield Sites identified within the Pre-Submission
Local Plan, including:
• Land Kennel Farm
• Land at Manydown
• Land at Swing Swang Lane
• Land at Razors Farm
• North of Popley Fields
Page 14 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
• Redlands
• Cufaude Farm
• East of Basingstoke
• Basingstoke Golf Club
4.11 Having assessed all of the alternatives, both within and on the fringe of the settlement
boundary, land at Kennel Farm has been deemed required to meet the future housing needs
of the Borough, and moreover, has been deemed more appropriate and sustainable than 8
other potential sites that were not carried forward into the Pre-Submission Local Plan.
4.12 With the emerging Local Plan still to be submitted and tested at Examination in Public, the
Appellant’s case does not rely on the Appeal Site’s identification and allocation within the Pre-
Submission Local Plan (Policy SS3.2) carrying significant weight in the determination of the
Appeal. That said, it is very much the case that in order to meet the Council’s short term
housing requirement there is a consensus between the Appellant and the LPA that Greenfield
sites are required to come forward, and further consensus that having assessed all
alternatives, the Appeal site represents one of the most appropriate, sustainable and
deliverable sites to meet that requirement in the context of the emerging Local Plan.
Page 15 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
5. Housing Land Supply
5.1 This section of my Proof of Evidence sets out the position as of April 2013 in respect of the
housing land supply within Basingstoke and Deane Borough. The section provides an
assessment against the Liverpool Methodology, with a comparison provided against the
Sedgefield Methodology for completeness, while utilising the Council’s emerging locally
derived housing requirement of 748 dwellings per annum from 2011 to 2029. Further
commentary is set out within the supplementary Statement of Common Ground submitted to
the Inquiry.
5.2 The starting point for the assessment of land supply in the context of this Appeal is that within
the Borough there is acknowledged to be a ‘serious and significant’ shortfall of housing as
concluded by both the Inspector and the Secretary of State in allowing the Appeal at land
north of Marnel Park (Paragraph 14 CD/11.1). This serious and significant shortfall remains
despite that Appeal being allowed; a point acknowledged by the LPA within Para 5.2 of the
Statement of Common Ground (CD/1.5).
5.3 Since that Inquiry was held, the LPA has obtained its completion figures for the period 2012/
2013, which totalled some 303 dwellings, down from 693 dwellings achieved in 2011/ 2012.
In respect of the delivery of housing therefore, the position is worsening with the delivery of
both open market and affordable housing significantly below that required.
5.4 The analysis of the land supply position starts with a summary of the Council’s position as
provided to the Appellant on 11 October 2013, with each element then critiqued. Table 1
provides a summary of the Council’s most recent assessment of land supply.
Table 1: LPA Assessment of Housing Land Supply (April 2013 Base)
Total Requirement (2011 to 2029) 13,464 Completions 2011 - 2013 996 Residual requirement 2013 - 2029 12,468 [13,464 - 996] Residual Annual Requirement 2013 - 2029 779 [13,464 ÷ 16] 5 Year requirement (2013/14 - 2017/18) 3,895 [779 x 5] 5 Year Requirement plus 5% buffer 4,090 [3,895 + 195] Revised Annual Requirement (2013 - 2018) 818 [4,090 ÷ 5] Supply 3,128 Years Supply 3.8 Years [3,128 ÷ 818]
Page 16 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
5.5 The LPA has utilised the Liverpool Method, by averaging the -496 shortfall that has occurred
in the two years since April 2011 over the remaining 16 years of the Plan Period, which
combined with the 5% buffer and the projected supply of 3,128 dwellings would yield 3.8 years supply. This therefore can be concluded to represent the best case scenario for the
LPA, which is some -767 dwellings short of being able to demonstrate a five year housing
land supply.
5.6 By way of comparison, when the Sedgefield Methodology is used against the same
projected completions and applying a 5% buffer, the housing land supply position advocated
by the LPA falls to 3.5 years supply, when the -496 shortfall that has occurred since April
2011 is made up for in the five year period to 2018. This is set out within Table 2.
Table 2: LPA Assessment of Housing Land Supply (April 2013 Base) Sedgefield Method Total Requirement (2011 to 2029) 13,464 Completions 2011 - 2013 996 Requirement 2013 – 2018 3,740 [748 x 5] Plus Shortfall (2011 – 2013) 4,236 [3,740 + 496] Residual 5 year Requirement Plus 5% 4,448 [4,236 + 212] Revised Annual Requirement 2013 – 2018 890 [4,448 ÷ 5] Supply 3,128 Years Supply 3.5 Years [3,128 ÷ 890]
Annual Housing Requirement
5.7 One of the primary influences on the land supply position is the annual requirement. The
Council has put forward to be tested at Examination an annual requirement of 748 dwellings
per annum over the period 2011 to 2029. We know from the shortfall that has occurred since
April 2011 that the residual annual requirement for the next five years to 2018 has already
risen from 748 dpa to between 818 dpa and 890 dpa, depending on when the shortfall is
made up.
5.8 This proposed annual requirement of 748 dpa is also some 200 dwellings per annum less
than that tested and deemed sound during the Examination in Public of the South East Plan.
Any increase in this annual requirement deemed necessary and appropriate during the
Examination of the Local Plan in 2014 will be backdated to April 2011, and thus worsen the
residual position and reducing the years supply further regardless of which methodology us
used.
Page 17 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
Land Supply 5.9 To inform the Inquiry, the LPA has released the housing trajectory of sites it considers will
deliver housing completions in the period to 2018 and which total 3,128 dwellings (CD/10.11).
This supply is made up of a number of sources, which is set out within Table 3.
Table 3: Sources of Supply
Large Sites with Planning Permission 1,749 * (56%) Adopted Local Plan Allocations 662 (21%) SHLAA Opportunity Sites 431 (14%) Small Sites with Planning Permission 186 (6%) Small Site Windfall Allowance 100 (3%) Total 3,128
* The 280 dwellings projected to come forward from the land North of Marnel Park has been
moved from SHLAA Opportunity Sites category to Large Sites with Planning Permission
following the Secretary of State’s decision.
5.10 It is evident that of the 3,128 units the LPA considers deliverable within the five year period,
only 62% actually benefit from a Planning Permission. Furthermore, of the projected supply
some 21% is located on sites that have benefited from an allocation for the last seven years
since the Local Plan was adopted in July 2006, and yet have failed to come forward and
deliver completions. The assertion that some 662 dwellings will be completed in the next five
years from a source that has not delivered completions in the last seven years is
questionable.
5.11 By way of example, the Aldermaston Road Triangle Site, which is owned by the Borough
Council and also benefited from a Development Brief has previously been refused planning
permission in July 2008. Since then, no Planning Application has been submitted nor is one
likely in the immediate future. Despite this, the Council relies on 150 dwellings coming
forward in the 5 year Period. This simply highlights the fragility and lack of robustness of the
assumed supply of 3,128 dwellings.
5.12 In respect of the windfall allowance, it is considered sound practice to limit this to the last two
years of the five year period to avoid the potential for double counting with those sites that
benefit from having Planning Permission.
5.13 For a source of supply to count towards the five year housing land supply and be considered
‘deliverable’, footnote 11 of the NPPF states that ‘....sites should be available now, offer a
suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that
Page 18 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the
site is viable. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until
permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented
within five years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type
of units or sites have long term phasing plans.
5.14 By limiting the Housing Land Supply to those sites that benefit from Planning Permission, and
thus can have more certainty of being deliverable (1,935 dwellings), this would equate to 2.4
years supply against the Liverpool Method and 2.2 years Supply against the Sedgefield
Method.
5.15 While the Council concedes that even if all of the sources of supply come forward as
projected there is still a ‘serious and significant shortfall’, with less than half of that assumed
deliverable supply benefiting from a Planning Permission, the reality is likely be significantly
worse.
Future Completion Rate
5.16 As a result of the shortfall in housing completions that has occurred since 2011, the residual
requirement based on the yet to be tested 748 dpa has already risen to 818 dpa against the
Liverpool Method and 890 against the Sedgefield Method. It is evident from the Council’s
projected completion rate of 3,128 dwellings to 2018 set out within Table 4, that at no point
during the next five years does the Council expect to achieve the required rate in any single
year, to either maintain the status quo, or actually make up for the shortfall. Year on year
therefore, this serious and significant shortfall will worsen.
Table 4: Projected Annual Completions
2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 525 595 568 729 711
5.17 The NPPF is clear in its direction where there is a failure to demonstrate a five year housing
land supply, and it is not disputed between both parties that as per Paragraph 48, the relevant
policies for the supply of housing within the adopted Local Plan cannot be considered up-to-
date given the failure to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.
5.18 The Appellant contends therefore that significant weight should apply to Paragraph 14 of the
NPPF and weigh in favour of allowing this Appeal in making up in part, the significant shortfall
that has occurred and will continue to occur within the Borough in the short term. The
Page 19 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
foundations of the National Planning Framework are built upon supporting an increase in
house building and the presumption in favour of sustainable development, particularly in
cases where it has been identified that a shortfall in housing exists. The alternative, and to
wait for the Local Plan to be adopted and then making up the housing provision later in the
plan period, would be the antithesis of the approach advocated in the Framework as
concluded by the Inspector and Secretary of State in determining the recent Land north of
Marnel Park Appeal (CD/11.1 Para 9.5.6).
5.19 With the residual annual housing requirement already rising fast and as projected by the LPA,
to continue to rise year on year due to under provision, it is a mathematical certainty that
Greenfield Sites are required to make up for the shortfall and deliver open market and
affordable housing during the Plan Period. Indeed, of the total housing requirement deemed
necessary during the Plan Period (13,464), more than half is projected by the LPA as being
required to be delivered on Greenfield sites (7,010), which highlights the reliance the LPA has
placed on Greenfield releases coming forward in a timely manner.
5.20 In respect of the immediate 5 year position, due to the shortfall that has already occurred and
will continue to occur, compared against the future supply, it is impossible to begin to make
up for this shortfall and meet the requirements of Para 47 the NPPF without the release of
Greenfield sites. In the context of which are the most appropriate, the Appeal proposal
represents a site that has not only been the subject of extensive assessment by the LPA and
the Appellant, but has also been the subject of full public consultation; the conclusion of which
is when assessed against the alternatives, it is one of the nine sites deemed most suitable
around the Town.
5.21 In the context where the LPA places a high reliance on Greenfield Sites to meet not only the
total housing requirement, but also the 5 year requirement, to not release what is deemed to
be one of the most suitable sites will inevitably result in additional pressure to release
alternative sites that have been deemed not as appropriate via the Council’s site selection
process.
5.22 As per Paragraph 14 of the NPPF, it is not considered that approving the Appeal would cause
adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when
assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.
Page 20 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
5.23 The following provides a summary of the position in respect of housing land supply:
• Maximum level of supply at April 2013 equates to 3.8 years supply (Liverpool) or 3.5 years
(Sedgefield).
• That sites with Planning Permission only account for 2.4 years supply (Liverpool) and 2.2
years supply (Sedgefield).
• It is not disputed between either party that even this maximum level of supply represents a
serious and significant shortfall.
• That the 748 dpa requirement is some 200 dwellings less than that deemed sound
previously, and is yet to be tested at Examination.
• That there is a high probability the 662 dwellings identified to come forward on historic
Local Plan allocations will not materialise.
• That in light of the historic completion rate, a 5% buffer is appropriate, but that this position
will change given the shortfall that has occurred in the last two years and is projected to
occur.
• The serious and significant shortfall is to worsen year on year based on the April 2013
forward projection of housing completions.
• That there is a high reliance on Greenfield releases, both to meet the total housing
requirement of the Plan Period, but also, in the short term to begin to make up for the
shortfall and meet the 5 year requirement.
Page 21 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
6. Putative Reason for Refusal No 1
Reason for Refusal No 1
The scale of the proposed development is considered so significant in this particular location
that it would prejudice the development of the spatial vision for the borough with particular
regard to decisions in relation to transport infrastructure. Accordingly the development is
considered to be premature and would prejudice decisions about the size, scale, sustainability
and phasing of new housing development within the borough and furthermore, undermine
wider policy objectives. As such, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the National
Planning Policy Framework 2012 and The Planning System: General Principles document.
6.1 As set out within the Planning Committee Report of 19 June 2013 (CD/3.1), in recommending
Approval of the Planning Application, the Borough Council Officers recognised that a case for
refusal on the grounds of prematurity could not be sustained (Page 20-22 Committee Report),
not least due to the serious and significant shortfall in housing supply that exists and the
weight to be attached to Para 14 of the NPPF. Moreover, the Officers did not consider that in
approving the Application it would cause adverse impacts that would significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
6.2 The issue of prematurity was discussed at length at the land north of Marnel Park Appeal in
May 2013, where in overturning the Officer’s recommendation to approve the Application, the
Borough Council had imposed a reason for refusal based on prematurity. As per this Site
subject to this Appeal, the Inspector recognised that land north of Marnel Park had been
carried forward in every subsequent assessment of sites that will inform the emerging Local
Plan (CD/11.1 IR9.5.5) and again, mirroring the status of this Appeal site, it is one of 6
currently put forward for allocation in the first 5 year period of the emerging Local Plan
(CD/11.1 IR9.5.6).
6.3 In light of the continued delay in preparing the Local Plan and the resultant housing shortage,
the Inspector continued that there can be no certainty that the emerging Local Plan would be
adopted by August 2014. Waiting for the Local Plan to be adopted and then making up the
housing provision later in the plan period would be the antithesis of the approach advocated
in the Framework (IR9.5.6). In the context of these points, which support the thrust of the
Government’s objectives covered in Section 4 of this Proof of Evidence, the Inspector
concluded that an argument based on prematurity was not justified; a view shared and
supported by the Secretary of State in drawing his conclusions.
Page 22 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
6.4 The implications of the decision into the Marnel Park Appeal has in part been addressed by
the LPA in its Statement of Case (CD/1.4), which states that: In the light of the decision dated
11 September 2013 of the Secretary of State in the Marnel Park Appeal
(APP/H1705/A/12/2188125 & APP/H1705/A/12/2188137), which post-dates the Councils
decision in this case, the Council accepts that the prejudice caused to the spatial vision for
Basingstoke as set out in the emerging Local Plan should no longer be viewed as a sufficient
Reason for Refusal in isolation (Para 6.13).
6.5 Despite the clear and unequivocal direction from the Inspector and the Secretary of State in
dismissing the case of the LPA in respect of prematurity, the LPA has refrained from
withdrawing Reason for Refusal No.1 in respect of this Appeal.
6.6 As set out in Paragraph 6.13, while no longer considered a sufficient reason in isolation, the
LPA’s case is that allowing the Appeal would prejudice the plan led system by pre-empting
decisions about the scale of development and the transport infrastructure required to support
it.
6.7 Firstly, while significant weight is not afforded by the Appellant to the site’s identification within
the emerging Local Plan, it is a factual position that in respect of the scale of development,
the location of development and the transport infrastructure required to serve that
development, the LPA itself considers that the Appeal site very much forms part of its
emerging spatial strategy and does not represent a proposal that could prejudice it. This
indeed has remained a consistent position for a number of years.
6.8 Secondly, and addressed by the Inspector in the case of land North of Marnel Park (CDXX
Para 9.5.6), there is a serious and significant shortfall of housing supply within the Borough
and in light of the continued delay in the LPA preparing its emerging Local Plan, the Inspector
noted that, ‘waiting for the Local Plan to be adopted and then making up the housing
provision later in the plan period would be the antithesis of the approach advocated in the
Framework [our emphasis]. We fully support this view, and moreover, point to the continued
delay of the LPA in preparing its emerging Local Plan as one of, if not the primary reason for
the ‘serious and significant’ housing shortfall that currently exists.
6.9 In respect of the scale of the Appeal proposal in the context of the overall housing
requirement needing to be delivered within the Borough from 2011 to 2029, the 310 dwellings
would represent some 2.3% of the total 13,464 dwellings. Not only therefore does the Appeal
proposal form part of the emerging spatial strategy, its scale would also not represent a
development that could prejudice the emerging spatial strategy for the Borough.
Page 23 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
6.10 The similarity between the land north of Marnel Park and Kennel Farm is significant. Both
sites have consistently been assessed and concluded by the Borough Council as being
suitable for future development when assessed against the alternatives and subject to
extensive public consultation. Furthermore, as per the Pre-Submission Local Plan (August
2013 CD/8.5), the Borough Council has concluded that both sites are required to come
forward in the first 5 years of the Plan Period.
6.11 In considering the Planning Application in June 2013 and in advising its Members, the
Borough Council Officers were correct therefore to argue that in respect of the weight to be
attached to Para 49 and Para 14 of the NPPF as a material consideration, there was no
justification for refusal of the Application on the grounds of prematurity, and that the
Committee acted erroneously in doing so.
6.12 Most recently and in response to the Appellant’s letter of 17th October 2013 (CD/10.26), that
highlighted concern that this Reason for Refusal was still being pursued, the LPA has
expanded upon what it considers to be the basis for its argument of prematurity.
6.13 Within the response, the LPA make the case that ‘Unlike the position at Marnel Park the
appeal proposals are in direct conflict with the policy proposals for the site in the Pre-
Submission Local Plan. The circumstances are therefore different to those being considered
in that case (Para 1.3, CD/10.27). The LPA concludes that the argument for prematurity can
‘carry some weight but not over-riding weight’ (Para 1.2 CD/10.27) in making a distinction
between the Appeal Site, and Marnel Park, where the SoS and Inspector were unequivocal in
dismissing the argument.
6.14 This distinction drawn by the LPA between the two Appeal sites is the opposite to the
distinction made by the LPA Officers within the June Planning Committee Report (CD/3.1) at
Page 21 of that Report. At that time, and in advising Members that it would be difficult to
sustain an argument for prematurity against the Kennel Farm Planning Application, the
Officers stated that this ‘differs from the applications for Marnel Park (BDB/75761 and
BDB/75762) which were reported to Development Control Committee in July and September
2012, subsequently refused by the council and which are currently awaiting decisions on
appeal by the Secretary of State’ (CDXX).
6.15 Following the decision of the SoS in the case of land north of Marnel Park, the LPA has now
switched its position, and considers that it is the Appeal Site where an argument against
prematurity can be made, and that the position differs from that at Marnel Park.
Page 24 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
6.16 Within its letter of 23rd October 2013, the LPA directs the Appellant to an Appeal Decision at
Stephenson Way, Coalville, Leicestershire, (APP/G2435/A/11/2158154), as justifying and
providing consistency to its approach. In this example, the Council was to identify a single
Strategic Land Site at Coalville within its emerging Core Strategy, which the Council argued
would certainly not be the Appeal site in that case, which was to be identified as an ‘Area of
Separation’.
6.17 In contrast, the position at Basingstoke is that the Appeal proposal is one of nine Strategic
Greenfield Sites identified to come forward at the Town having been tested against all of the
alternatives. Furthermore, with a capacity of 2.3% of the total housing required to be delivered
during the Plan Period, it is argued that the Appeal proposal is not be so substantial or where
the cumulative effect would be so significant that granting permission would prejudice the
Plan by predetermining decisions about scale, location or phasing. Indeed, as set out within
Para 9.5.5 of Marnel Park Decision, which had a greater capacity than the Appeal Site, the
LPA itself accepted in that case that the scale of housing to be delivered would be unlikely to
be prejudiced’.
6.18 While the LPA consider the Coalville Decision demonstrates consistency of its approach, the
appellant contends the more recent decision at Basingstoke Town itself represents a more
accurate reflection of government Policy and the direction of the Secretary of State,
6.19 Turning to the wording of the Reason for Refusal, particular emphasis has been placed on the
development prejudicing future decisions in relation to transport infrastructure. This issue
was pre-empted by the Officers in presenting to Members of the Planning Committee and
addressed at Pages 21-22 of the 19 June 2013 Committee Paper, where the Officers
explicitly advised Members that prematurity could not be sustained as a reason for refusing
the Application.
6.20 With the previous Pre-Submission Core Strategy quashed, the LPA had re-assessed the
availability of land at Manydown, to the west of Basingstoke. In doing so, the LPA concluded
that in addition to the Appeal site and other Greenfield allocations, land within the northern
area of Manydown should come forward within the Plan Period to 2029.
6.21 Given the significant separation between the northern area of Manydown identified within the
Pre-Submission Local Plan and the Appeal Site, there is no functional relationship between
the two. In respect of any future extension of the Manydown development to the south in the
next Plan Period post 2029, there is no sound basis for refusing the Appeal proposal on the
grounds that it may or may not provide a future access from the A30 to a development that
Page 25 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
may or may not come forward.
6.22 The position taken by the Planning Committee is even more illogical when the Appeal site has
not been identified as a potential access point from the A30 within the latest Transport
Assessment prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff (CD/9.18), where at Figure 2.3 an illustration of
Network Changes in the Future highlights the potential route of any future western bypass,
which lies to the west of the Appeal site and connects to the existing road network to the
south at Junction 7 of the M3.
6.23 Notwithstanding the fact the road is neither required during the Plan Period nor identified as
being potentially required to facilitate that road, as noted within the 19 June Committee
Report, the Borough Council places weight on the retention and long term management of the
woodland belts and SINCs, with Officers concluding that ‘it is unlikely that a road would be
brought through from the western edge of Kennel Farm to access the A30’ (Page 22, CD/3.1).
6.24 To seek the long term protection and management of these woodland belts as part of the
planning application process, only to then refuse the application on the basis that the
development may prejudice the loss of these woodland belts for significant new road building
is considered nonsensical.
6.25 To summarise the Appellant’s position in respect of Reason for Refusal No 1, Members of the
Planning Committee were explicitly advised by Officers verbally and in writing via the
Committee Report that refusing the Application on the grounds of prematurity could not be
sustained, particularly in light of the serious and significant shortage of housing supply and
the weight to be attached to Para 49 and Para 14 of the NPPF.
6.26 This position has been endorsed recently by both the Inspector and the Secretary of State in
considering the Appeal for land north of Marnel Park, Basingstoke. Despite this unequivocal
direction from the Secretary of State, the LPA continue to give ‘some weight but not over-
riding weight’ (Para 1.2 CD/10.27), acknowledge that it no longer considers the Reason for
Refusal can be substantiated in isolation and yet, does not withdraw the Reason for Refusal.
6.27 As supported by the Secretary of State and the Inspector in the recent Marnel Park Decision
in categorically dismissing any argument concerning prematurity, the Appellant contends that
there is no scenario where the Reason for Refusal can be substantiated.
Page 26 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
7. Putative Reason for Refusal No 5
RfR No 5
The proposed number of dwellings is considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site.
The density of development proposed is inappropriate for the edge of the settlement given the
specific constraints of this site with regards to its location on an important entrance to the
Basingstoke Town settlement and relationship to key biodiversity habitats. As such the
proposal is considered contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and
Saved Policies E1, E6 and E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
7.1 In this section of my evidence, I set out the history of the LPA originally identifying the Appeal
site for approximately 350 dwellings, the events that lead to the recommendation that 310
dwellings was too dense, and finally draw a comparison with a recent approval on a
Greenfield site on the edge of Basingstoke.
7.2 In determining appropriate densities, BDBC applies ‘saved policy’ Policy E1 of its adopted
Local Plan (July 2006), which states that proposals for new development will be permitted
provided that they are of a high standard of design, make efficient use of land, respect the
amenities of neighbouring occupiers and do not result in inappropriate traffic generation of
compromise highway safety.
7.3 Further, Policy E1 states that all development proposals should respond to the local context
of buildings in terms of density, but no indicative density thresholds are given and there is no
definition for calculating density within the glossary of terms.
7.4 Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (June 2011) sets out a definition of and methodology
for the calculation of net dwelling density (refer to Annex B) as follows:
‘Net dwelling density is calculated by including only those site areas which will be developed
for housing and directly associated uses, including access roads within the site, private
garden space, car parking areas, incidental open space and landscaping and children’s play
areas, where these are provided.’
7.5 This definition of net dwelling density was not carried over into the NPPF, nor however has it
been superseded by an alternative definition. That said, the LPA has indicated its intention to
adopt the PPS3 Method by including the same definition within the Glossary of its Pre-
Page 27 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
Submission Local Plan (CD/8.5).
7.6 For the purpose of this Appeal and in the absence of any other recognised approach to
calculating density, the former PPS3 definition has been used to calculate the net density of
the Appeal Site.
7.7 As set out within this Proof of Evidence, the Borough Council had since May 2010 considered
that the Appeal could accommodate ‘approximately 350 dwellings’. This capacity had been
assessed by the Council and included within its SHLAA and ultimately the Pre-Submission
draft of the Core Strategy published in January 2012 (CD/8.4).
7.8 In May 2012, the Borough Council’s Urban Design team responded to the Pre-Application
submission, where comments were provided concerning the perimeter block approach, height
of development and footpath connections, the details of which were taken into account in
revising the illustrative layout. At that time, the indicative layout proposed 325 dwellings and
importantly, at no time during this period of consultation was it stated that the capacity or
density was too great. On the contrary, the Pre-Application submission proposed 25 fewer
dwellings than that identified within the Pre-Submission Core Strategy Policy of
‘approximately 350 dwellings’.
7.9 The first concern raised by the LPA regarding the density of the Appeal proposal arose in
January 2013, when following submission of the Planning Application the Urban Design
Consultation response stated that ‘The proposal is far too densely developed and urbanised
in its character for its location. This position was contrary to that taken by the Policy team in
its consultation response which stated that the Density was appropriate for the area.
7.10 Following the submission of the amended Plans in March 2013, the Urban Design team
provided further commentary on its objection to the density calculation. In doing so, it stated
that:
‘The agent is suggesting that a capacity of 310 dw [sic] is acceptable as it equates to 31.6
dph over an area of 9.8 ha comprising 7.2 ha of built form plus 2.6 ha accessible open space.
However, that assumes that all the 2.6 ha of accessible open space is equivalent to the old
PPS3 definition of childrens play space and incidental space. However, I consider it likely
that the 2.6ha includes types of open space which would not normally come within the net
density figure such as Accessible Natural Green Space; in addition the 2.6 ha is likely to
include an area of incidental open space and landscaping which is far in excess of what is
considered typical for the purposes of calculating a net housing density ......If the capacity of
Page 28 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
310 dwellings is applied to the 7.2 ha of built form area then this equates to a ‘housing alone’
figure of around 43 dph. An alternative way of looking at this is to apply the 310 dwelling
figure to a net site area which has an open space component which is less than 2.6 ha and is
more comparable to more typical sites: this could equate to a normal PPS net housing density
figure of 35-40 dph (Urban Design Response 25 March 2013).
7.11 In forming this judgement, the Officer moved away from the recognised methodology for
calculating net residential density and excluded areas of on site accessible open space from
the net developable area, and instead sought to calculate density on a ‘housing alone’ area,
artificially reducing the net developable area, raising the density and thus recommending a
reduction in overall housing capacity to 250 dwellings.
7.12 This approach taken by the Urban Design Officer in calculating the net developable area of
the land at Kennel Farm has directly influenced the amendment made to the Policy Allocation
within the emerging Local Plan.
7.13 It should be noted however, that no other proposed allocation carried forward from the former
Pre-Submission Core Strategy to the Pre-Submission Local Plan has been reduced in a
similar manner, and therefore the approach taken is not only flawed and unjustified, it is also
inconsistent. If the Officer was correct in his approach and it was consistently applied, then
the capacity of each and every other Local Plan Allocation should have been assessed on the
basis of a ‘housing alone’ figure.
7.14 Given the Accessible Natural Green Space cited by the Urban Design Officer is
supplementary and incidental to the housing and for the enjoyment of those people residing
within the development, it was and still is considered to form part of the definition of the net
developable area.
7.15 The issue of density and layout in respect of an outline application was recently considered in
the Appeal Decision for land at Pitt Manor, Winchester APP/L1765/A/11/21468 (2012). Within
that decision, the Inspector references the definition listed within PPS3 (Annex B), which
stipulates that the Net Dwelling density is calculated ‘by including only those site areas which
will be developed for housing and directly associated uses, including access roads within the
site, private garden space, car parking areas, incidental open space and landscaping and
children’s play areas, where these are provided’.
Page 29 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
7.16 Having considered the Urban Design Officer’s response, Savills responded to the Borough
Council on 12 April 2013, setting out concerns over how the Urban Design Officer had
calculated the net density, and ultimately recommended that the capacity should be reduced
to 250 dwellings. In the response received on 1 May 2013 (CD/10.9) the Borough Council
acknowledged that the correct methodology for calculating net density was that proposed by
Savills. Specifically, the correspondence received from the Case Officer, Ms P Logie, stated
‘I have discussed the principle of how to calculate density with the Planning and Development
Manager, Mike Townsend. The council will calculate density based on the site area,
excluding the Non- accessible buffer area. From the dimensions on your most recent plan
(Illustrative Layout/ Parameter Plan 122 P103 Rev B) this equates to 31.6 dwellings per
hectare (CD/10.9).
7.17 As of 1 May 2013 therefore, the Council had changed its position and concurred with the
Appellant in respect of the correct methodology for calculating density and thus it was
concluded by Officers that the application as proposed of ‘up to 310 dwellings’ was
appropriate. There is no longer a disagreement therefore between the Appellant and the LPA
Officers over how the net density should be calculated in light of the correspondence received
on 1 May 2013.
7.18 Taking this agreed methodology, which has not been disputed within the LPA’s Statement of
Case, with the 2.4ha of non accessible open space deducted from the total site area of
12.2ha, this leaves a net developable area of 9.8ha. When compared to a density of 30
dwellings per hectare, previously the national minimum required, this would yield circa 300
dwellings with the maximum of 310 dwellings proposed representing 32 dpa (rounded up).
7.19 As set out within Paragraph 6.8 of the LPA’s Statement of Case (CD/1.4), it is stated that
‘having regard to the constraints of the site (including the site’s proximity to designated areas
of biodiversity value; the topography of the site and the surrounding area; and prominence
from public vantage points); and in consideration of the requirements of the Development
Plan and other material documents, a development of the scale proposed would result in
overdevelopment of the site and an incongruous urban form’.
7.20 Having undertaken all of the necessary landscape, ecology and visual impact assessments
required to inform the Plan Production process, the Council itself had concluded that the
Appeal site could accommodate ‘approximately 350 dwellings’, in submitting the former Pre-
Submission Core Strategy to the Secretary of State. While no weight can be attributed to that
document due to the decision of the High Court to quash the emerging DPD, the evidence
prepared by the Council that underpinned that Core Strategy remains true.
Page 30 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
7.21 It is illogical to suggest that the site constraints has changed to the extent that the site’s
capacity of this particular Local Plan Allocation should be reduced by nearly 29%, whereas
the capacity of all other Greenfield Allocations carried over from the Pre-Submission Core
Strategy to the Pre-Submission Local Plan have remained a constant. On the contrary, the
only influence over the reduction in assumed capacity has emanated from the Urban Design
Officer’s unsound approach to calculating density, which has now been shown to be incorrect
by the LPA itself.
7.22 In drawing a comparison between the Appeal proposal and land North of Marnel Park, the
other most recently masterplanned and approved Greenfield site at Basingstoke, it is noted
that the 200 dwelling detailed application applies an average density of 33.4dph, with the
larger 450 dwelling outline application citing a density of 32.8 dpa, which is also consistent
with the capacity of the Local Plan Allocation.
7.23 In considering the detailed planning application, the LPA stated within the Committee Report
that; This density would secure an efficient use of land, and given the character of the
surrounding area and proximity to the countryside, it is considered that the proposed density
would be acceptable in urban design terms. The more dense part of the development would
be located close to the existing settlement. (Page 60, 200 unit Detailed Application Committee
Report). Furthermore, this density and capacity of the wider 450 dwelling scheme is
consistent with the Council’s approach to calculating the capacity of the proposed Local Plan
Allocation that particular site.
7.24 Despite the recommendation to Approve the Planning Application submitted on land North of
Marnel Park, the Planning Application was refused by Members of the Planning Committee
and recently allowed on Appeal by the Secretary of State. In refusing the Planning
Application however, the LPA did not cite capacity or density as being a Reason for Refusal,
and thus in the case this Greenfield urban extension to Basingstoke Town, a density of 33.4
dpa was not considered to be overdevelopment, and represents a higher density than the
maximum proposed at the Appeal Site of 31.6 dpa.
7.25 To summarise the Appellant’s evidence in respect of Reason for Refusal No. 5, there has
been no change to the physical characteristics of the Appeal site to warrant a reduction in
assumed capacity by nearly 29%. On the contrary, this reduction has emanated from a single
Officer’s approach to calculating net density, that was not applied to any other Greenfield
allocation carried over from the Pre-Submission Core Strategy to the Pre-Submission Local
Plan, and which has subsequently been acknowledged to be incorrect by the LPA itself.
Page 31 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
7.26 Regardless of how the error concerning density and capacity has occurred, at a maximum of
31.6 dpa, the Appeal proposal would reflect an appropriate density that makes efficient use of
the Greenfield site and provide for the required housing mix required by the LPA.
Furthermore, with regard to its edge of urban location, the density would in fact be marginally
lower than that approved by the Secretary of State in the case of land North of Marnel Park,
which represents the most recent Greenfield extension to be approved on the edge of
Basingstoke.
Page 32 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
8. Putative Reason for Refusal No 6
RfR No.6
In the absence of any suitable legal agreement, or justification for the absence of a legal
agreement, the proposed development does not make adequate provision for community and
infrastructure contributions in relation to Affordable Housing; Woodland Management Plan;
Landscape Management Plan; Travel Plan; Broadband Plan; On site non accessible open
space; On site accessible open space; Transport (BEST); Education; Community
Infrastructure; Parks; Playing Fields; Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play; Allotments;
Biodiversity issues; Percentage for Art to adequately off-set the impact of the development.
The proposed development is therefore contrary to the Community Infrastructure Levy
Regulations 2010, Saved Policies C1, C2, C7, C9 and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane
Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the guidance contained within the Planning Obligations
and Community Infrastructure Interim Guidance Document and the Adopted Green Space
Standards (April 2013).
8.1 Matters concerning the Legal Agreement had progressed up to the point of the
recommendation to approve the Application at the Development Control Committee of 19
June 2013 between the Appellant and the LPA. The reason for refusal exists due to the
absence of a completed Legal Agreement at that time, however, the content, scope and form
of the obligations contained within are largely agreed between both parties and set out within
the Legal Agreement submitted to the Inquiry.
Primary Education
8.2 Matters concerning primary education provision have been discussed with the County
Education provider, which has concluded that off site financial contributions are required to
mitigate the impact of the increase in primary aged pupils. It has been confirmed that no
contribution is required for Secondary Education.
8.3 The calculation of Primary Pupil Numbers is taken from ‘Developers’ Contributions towards
Children’s Services Facilities’ (Hampshire County Council, December 2011). The formula
requires the discounting of any one bedroom properties and then, calculates the pupil
numbers by 0.30 pupils per dwelling. While the Appeal proposal is in outline form, an
indicative accommodation schedule was submitted with the original planning application in
December 2012, which identified some 25 one bedroom properties, and formed the bases
Page 33 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
upon which the calculation has been formed, with the precise contribution to be concluded at
the reserved matters stage once the final number of dwellings and mix is known.
8.4 Based on the indicative accommodation schedule submitted, there would be a maximum of
285 dwellings of 2 or more bedrooms, which multiplied by 0.30, would equate to 86 pupils of
Primary School Age. By way of example only, if there were no one bedroom properties, the
Pupil numbers would equate to 93 if all 310 dwellings were approved at the reserve matters
stage.
8.5 The nearest schools to the Appeal Site are the Kempshott Infant School and Kempshott
Junior School, both of which are at or nearing capacity and thus a contribution is being
sought. As advised by the Education Authority, the Kempshott Schools accommodate pupils
from the wider area, not just from within their own catchment area and it has been concluded
by the Education Authority that by expanding Park View Schools, this will displace pupils
attending the Kempshott Schools from outside of their catchment area, thus creating space
for pupils from the Kennel Farm development at time of admission to the Infant and Junior
Schools.
8.6 In recognition of the fact that the precise quantum of housing and dwelling mix will be agreed
at the reserved matters stage, the Legal Agreement references the formula upon which the
final financial contribution will be calculated.
Community Facilities
8.7 There are two community centres close to the site, Old Down Hall, which is located on the
northern fringe of the formal open space at Old Down, and Hatch Warren Community Centre,
which is located to the east of the A30. The Community Development team has requested
that an offsite contribution be sought for the enhancement of current facilities/ contribution
towards new facility, which is considered fair and reasonable and a contribution of £465,000 is
provided for within the Legal Agreement.
Affordable Housing
8.8 Provision has been made within the Legal Agreement for 40% of the dwellings to be built as
part of the development comprising Rented Affordable Units and Shared Ownership Units.
The precise number, location and tenure are to be agreed at the reserved matters stage.
Open Space
8.9 Open Space is to be provided in combination of on-site provision and off-site financial
contributions, as set out within the Legal Agreement. The on-site open space will include
Page 34 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
2.8ha of accessible open space, inclusive of Local Areas of Play, with an additional 400sqm
of Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP). In addition, the following off-site financial
contributions have been provided for within the Legal Agreement:
• £331,600 as a contribution towards the cost of providing, running and maintaining open
space in the locality of the Site, specifically, that located at Old Down to the north and
Beggarwood Park to the east of the A30.
• £155,844.75 as a contribution towards the cost of providing, running and maintaining playing fields in the locality of the Site at Brighton Hill and Hatch Warren
Travel Plan
8.10 A Travel Plan in accordance with the agreed Framework Travel Plan will be delivered in
support of the Appeal Scheme. The Travel Plan contains a number of measures to reduce
the number of peak hour car trips generated by the site and to encourage travel by occupants
of the development by means other than the private car. Full details are set out within the
Travel Plan that accompanies the Appeal proposal (CD/2.35).
Highways
8.11 Based on the indicative development mix for a 310 dwelling scheme, a transport contribution
of £991,737 has been agreed with Hampshire County Council. The contribution is to be paid
in five equal instalments: prior to first occupation and then prior to the occupation of the 51st,
102nd, 153rd and 205th dwellings as set out within the Legal Agreement submitted to the
Inquiry. Full details concerning the local improvements have been set out within the Proof of
Evidence submitted by Mr Bevis.
Woodland Management Plan
8.12 Matters concerning the Outline Woodland Management Plan have been set out in full in the
Proof of Evidence submitted by Ms Spray. The provision of this Management Plan has been
secured within the Legal Agreement and through discussions between the LPA and the
Appellant.
Landscape Management Plan
8.13 As set out within the Legal Agreement, there is an obligation on the Appellant that prior to the
commencement of development, to have the details of the Landscape Management Plan
approved in writing by the LPA.
Page 35 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
Art
8.14 Provision has been made within the Legal Agreement for incorporating a Public Art scheme
into the built environment. Details of the Art and its location shall be agreed with the LPA
prior to commencement, and cost no less than £10,000 and not exceeding a limit of £30,000.
8.15 Through the submission of the completed Legal Agreement to the Inquiry, it is expected that
the LPA will withdraw the Reason for Refusal.
Page 36 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
9. Response to Third Party Representations
9.1 Where matters raised concern, Landscape, Ecology and Highways, these have been
addressed in full in the respective Proofs of Evidence submitted on behalf of the Appellant,
and are not repeated in full within this Proof.
Pellipar Investments Ltd
9.2 The submission is made on behalf of the Skinners Company, in respect of its landholding to
the south of the Appeal Site at Hounsome Fields. The primary objection concerns the failure
of Hounsome Fields to be identified by the LPA as a suitable and deliverable site within the
emerging Local Plan, and that, the Appeal site should come forward but only in conjunction
with additional land to the south.
9.3 As set out within the Landscape Proof of Evidence submitted by Catherine Shelton
Associates (Para 7.5), there is a clear distinction between the Appeal site and the land at
Hounsome Fields, set out within the landscape capacity studies prepared by the LPA and
also within the consideration of the land within the SHLAA under reference BAS133.
Between the two sites there exists an east/west ridge line, which as per the landscape
capacity studies prepared by the LPA, concludes that the Appeal site has a medium capacity
and the land controlled by the Skinners Company, a ‘low capacity’.
9.4 The land at Hounsome Fields has been the subject of the same level of due diligence and
assessment as all of the future growth options surrounding Basingstoke, and it has been
concluded that it is not required to meet the housing requirement within the Plan Period within
the Pre-Submission Local Plan.
9.5 It is true that the south western area of Basingstoke has been identified as one area of growth
within the Local Plan, of which the Appeal Site forms part of, in conjunction with the
residential allocation of land at Basingstoke Golf Club. It is suggested within the
representation submitted to the Appeal (Para 4.9, 4.11 and 4.12), that the Appeal proposal
has not considered this wider growth within the highway improvements proposed and the
Transport Assessment prepared. At Core Document CD/1.6, the Inspector has the Agreed
Statement on Highways Matters prepared between the Appellant’s Highway advisor (i-
Transport) and Hampshire County Council. Within this Statement, the County Council
confirms that ‘the scope and structure of the Transport Assessment (TA), was the subject of
Page 37 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
detailed pre-application discussions with officers of the local highway authority. These
discussions commenced in February 2012 and continued up to the point that the local
highway authority was fully satisfied on highway and transport matters as confirmed in their
consultation response to the planning application dated 30th April 2013.....’ (CD/1.6, Para 1.3,
Agreed Statement on Highways Matters).
9.6 The assertion made therefore that the TA submitted in support of the Appeal proposals is
deficient, is unfounded and contrary to the view of the local highway authority.
9.7 In respect of the illustrative layout, no evidence is submitted by the objector to the Inquiry to
support the claims that ‘up to 310 dwellings’ could not be delivered on the Appeal site.
Furthermore, no evidence is provided how the illustrative layout incorporates a ‘barrier’
between the Appeal Site and Hounsome Fields.
9.8 As per the emerging Local Plan, there is no requirement of the Appellant within the illustrative
layout to make provision of a vehicular and pedestrian access to Hounsome Fields to the
south, which has not been identified by the LPA as a suitable site for future residential
development. The request therefore that the Inspector imposes a condition requiring such a
provision is considered unfounded.
9.9 With regard to the points raised concerning prematurity, these have already been addressed
within this Proof of Evidence in respect of Reason for Refusal No. 1 and are not repeated.
South West Action Group & Dummer Parish Council
9.10 Similarly to the Action Group SOLVE, which has campaigned against the expansion of
Basingstoke to the north east, the South West Action Group is lobbying the LPA to stop
development occurring to the south west. The objection in respect of prematurity has already
been addressed within this Proof of Evidence and is not repeated.
9.11 In respect of the accessibility of services and facilities, which replicates the objection from
Dummer Parish Council, this has been addressed within Section 4.3 of the Proof of Evidence
submitted on behalf of the Appellant by i-Transport, and sets out the improvements proposed
to pedestrian and cycle connections to the east of the A30, as required by the emerging Local
Plan Policy SS3.2.
9.12 Matters concerning Education have been the subject of discussions with the Local Education
Authority at Hampshire County Council. Contrary to the objection raised by Dummer Parish
Page 38 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
Council, the Education Authority has not objected to the Appeal proposal with the required
contribution towards future Primary Education provision set out within Legal Agreement
submitted to the Inquiry. No contribution is required towards Secondary Education.
9.13 As per the correspondence received from the Parish Council, it is true that improvements to
the foul sewerage network will be required as part of the implementation of the Appeal
proposals, and this is dealt with via Condition 28, following consultation with Thames Water.
Interested Party – Cllr T Reid
9.14 The objector is a Member of the Planning Committee at the Borough Council and was present
at the overturn of the recommendation to Approve the Planning Application on 19 June 2013.
Matters concerning Reason for Refusal No 1 and the potential for this site to form an access
road to a possible future development to the west have already been addressed, and are not
repeated here. The concerns raised over highway safety and road infrastructure are
unsubstantiated and conflict with the view of the local highway authority.
9.15 With regard to the crossing of the A30 to access services and facilities, improvements to
facilitate this form part of the Borough Council’s emerging Allocation for the Appeal Site, and
have therefore been taken into account and addressed in the Proof of Evidence submitted by
i-Transport.
9.16 Notwithstanding the concern raised by the objector that the woodland belts may be required
to facilitate new road infrastructure in the future, it is suggested that the Appeal proposal
would conflict with Paragraphs 117 and 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF). The assessment of the Appeal proposal on the SINCs has been fully assessed as
set out within the Proof of Evidence submitted by WSP on behalf of the Appellant. Combined
with the Woodland Management Plan proposed, the proposal will not conflict with
Paragraph’s 117 and 118 of the NPPF; a view shared by the Borough Council’s ecologist and
Natural England.
Old Down and Beggarwood Wildlife Group (ODBWG)
9.17 The thrust of the objection from the ODBWG is that any development, not just the Appeal
proposal, should facilitate a 50 metre ‘buffer’ to ancient woodland. As set out within the
Evidence submitted by Ms Shelton and Ms Spray, neither of the two woodland strips are
identified as ancient woodland within the Hampshire Inventory of Ancient Woodlands
(Provisional), nor on the national inventory of ancient woodlands shown on the Multi-Agency
Page 39 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) database. They are however
designated as a Site Important for Nature Conservation.
9.18 Having reviewed the representation submitted to the Appeal, it is evident that the objection is
largely directed to the actions of the LPA and Natural England for not supporting the Group’s
objective that a 50 metre buffer should be applied when recommending approval and no
objection to the proposals.
9.19 While the woodland strips are not considered to be ancient woodland, for the purposes of the
Application there were considered as such. National guidance on the function and
appropriate width of “buffer zones” is contained within Natural England’s Standing Advice for
Ancient Woodland (Version 3, May 2012, CD/5.2). The advice states at Paragraph 7.5.1:
“Development close to, though not directly involving destruction of an ancient woodland can
nevertheless be damaging to the site (see Appendix 4). Whilst development should be kept
as far as possible from ancient woodland, a minimum buffer of at least 15 metres (see
Appendix 3) in width should be maintained between the ancient woodland and development
boundary.”
9.20 In order to prevent indirect consequences as discussed within the Natural England Guidance,
the buffers as shown have a mean distance of 22.6m from the west and 26.4m on the
northern boundary, and at no point fall below 20m. The buffers proposed are therefore
considerably greater than the minimum 15m recommended in the Natural England Standing
Advice, despite the fact the woodlands are not ancient woodland. Furthermore, they comply
fully with the 20m buffer width recommended by the LPA in its Landscape and Biodiversity
SPD, June 2008, which recommends a buffer 5m greater than the minimum recommended by
Natural England.
9.21 The Appellant therefore has responded to the Standing Advice of Natural England and the
local planning policy requirements of the Borough Council. While the objector disputes the
adequacy of these requirements set by Natural England and the LPA, it cannot be disputed
that the Appeal proposal has not complied with them and resulted in no objection.
9.22 Having met with the ODBWG on 4 July 2012 to discuss its concerns, it was evident that via a
new east/west link or ‘ride’ designed into the northern buffer, this may alleviate concern over
existing walkers accessing the Roman Road from the A30 via the woodland. Combined with
a Woodland Management Plan and new planting preventing desire lines being created, it is
considered that not only would the proposal not conflict with the requirements of Natural
England and the LPA, it would also bring with it long term benefits.
Page 40 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
9.23 The disagreement between the ODBWG and the LPA was further discussed as part of the
consideration given to the Green Infrastructure Strategy Paper on 30 July 2013. Within that
Paper (CD9.22), the LPA stated that:
The requirement for a minimum 50 metre woodland protection buffer on development sites
where ancient semi-natural woodland is present would potentially have two principal
implications for the council.
• Firstly, the wider buffers required within housing allocation sites would result in their capacity
being reduced, which may result in additional sites needing to be identified.
• Secondly, the minimum buffer distances shown in the Natural England Guidance and also
the Landscape and Biodiversity SPD, are ones which have been arrived at following detailed
assessment of what is likely to be required and justifiable in terms of buffers. Additionally,
both carry some material weight in consideration of planning applications as they are policy
constraints. Therefore, if the council refuses planning applications based on the lack of a 50
metre buffer it is currently likely to lose any subsequent planning appeal. In instances where
there were no sound reasons for insisting on a 50m buffer, developers would use the two
policy documents as evidence that applying a 50m buffer is unjustifiable. Furthermore,
officers are unaware of any instances where a requirement of a 50m woodland protection
buffer has been successfully defended at a planning appeal. (Para 3.17, Report to Cabinet,
30th July 2013).
9.24 For the reasons set out within this Proof of Evidence, and that provided by Ms Shelton and
Ms Spray, it is not considered that the Appeal proposal conflicts with best practice or
recognised guidance, resulting in no objection from Natural England and the LPA Ecologist.
Page 41 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
10. Summary and Conclusions
(A separate Summary is not submitted)
10.1 This Appeal has been made against a backdrop of a serious and significant shortfall in
housing land supply within Basingstoke and Deane Borough, primarily as a result of the
continued delay of the LPA to bring forward and have found sound a Local Plan.
10.2 The Plan production process commenced back in 2008, and since that time the LPA has
deliberated its future housing requirement in addition to those sites required to meet the future
housing need. What has remained a constant throughout this process however, is the fact
that having assessed all alternatives both within and on the fringe of the settlement boundary,
the LPA has deemed the Appeal site suitable, sustainable and required for release to meet in
part this future housing need.
10.3 The evidence of Ms Shelton, Mr Bevis and Ms Spray, has addressed in full matters
concerning Landscape, Transport and Ecology respectively. In summary, the pertinent issue
in relation to landscape and visual matters is whether development of the appeal site for up to
310 dwellings would result in significant and demonstrable harm to the landscape character
and visual amenities of the area. Ms Shelton describes the process to form a robust and
comprehensive landscape strategy with generous buffers and boundary features, which
provide an appropriate and attractive framework to the new built forms. Throughout this
process, the Appellant has liaised with the LPA and agreed matters of principle and
methodology in advance of submission.
10.4 The capacity of the site to accommodate housing development is considered in BDBC's
landscape capacity studies, with the most recent of these (the 2010 study – CD/9.7)
concluding that the site (BAS 114) has a medium capacity, i.e. it is capable of accommodating
some development. Furthermore, through the LPA’s proposed allocation of the appeal site
and other sites here to meet its housing requirements, means that there will be an inevitable
alteration to identity, and the landscape character on this edge of the Town will be changed
10.5 It is the contention of the LPA, that development in this location will be visually prominent and
affect the setting of this part of Basingstoke. It is the case that the development of any
greenfield site to meet the serious and significant housing supply shortfall will inevitably mean
that the built up area of the town will be extended into countryside. The extent to which this
change will be perceived from the surrounding area is fairly limited in the case of the appeal
Page 42 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
site as this land is bounded by robust landscape features (mature tree belts and hedgerows)
and separated from the countryside to the south by a ridgeline.
10.6 Ms Shelton has demonstrated through the detailed visual impact assessment, that the
adverse impacts of the appeal proposal would be limited to a number of local receptors, with
the only significant impact being on views from sections of the Roman Road to the west in the
short term. Furthermore, the Zone of Theoretical Visibility of the site is limited due to the site
being enclosed by its boundary features. Therefore, the area over which the landscape
effects of the scheme would be perceived is also limited, resulting in no significant, or
demonstrable harm to the wider landscape.
10.7 In respect of the evidence provided by Mr Bevis, it is not disputed that The Transport
Assessment and subsequent transport work is considered by the local highway authority to be
“reliable and robust for the purpose of assessing the transport and highways issues related to
the Appeal Scheme” (Agreed Statement on Transport Matters para. 7.7 CD/1.6).
10.8 Within the Local Plan Pre-Submission draft, the suitability and deliverability of the appeal
scheme has been assessed and it has been concluded by the LPA that there is a need for
mitigation at the Kempshott and Brighton Hill Roundabouts, which the Appeal scheme
complies with through a mitigation scheme and the Kempshott Roundabout and a circa
£1million transport contribution towards local highway schemes, including improvements to
the Brighton Hill Roundabout.
10.9 The proposal also specifically provides for improving the pedestrian/ cycling crossing facilities
across Winchester Road to enable access to services to the east as part of the wider access
strategy and the provision of a new bus stop, which will be served by the Jazz 1 service with a
12 minute frequency.
10.10 In respect of this access strategy, it has been agreed between the Local Highways Authority
and the Appellant that ‘There is a good existing network of pedestrian and cycle routes to the
north and east of the site and these, coupled with the Appeal Scheme’s access strategy, will
readily accommodate pedestrian and cycle journeys between the site; local facilities and
services; and the wider area.” (Agreed Statement on Transport Matters para 2.1 CD/1.6).
10.11 The collaborative approach taken by the Appellant and his advisor has resulted in no
objection from the Highway Authority, nor the Highways Agency in respect of the proposed
access strategy and vehicular access arrangements. The ability of the Appeal site to deliver
a scheme in a sustainable location and take up the opportunities for sustainable transport,
Page 43 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
while also providing safe and suitable access is also reflected in its consistent identification by
the LPA as a site required in the short term to meet the pressing housing need. It has been
demonstrated therefore that in highways and transportation terms, there would not be
significant and demonstrable harm in allowing the appeal.
10.12 Matters concerning Ecology and the buffers to the adjoining SINCs have been addressed in
detail in the evidence of Ms Spray. The Planning Application was supported by a full
ecological impact assessment (EcIA) completed in line with good practice methods (IEEM,
2006), which sets out anticipated ecological effects resulting from the development proposals.
It has been shown that throughout the preparation of the Planning Application, the Appellant
engaged fully with the LPA over its requirements for these buffer areas, and provides a
comprehensive scheme that complies fully with not only the LPA’s own Landscape and
Biodiversity (2008) SPD (CD/8.6), but also the standing advice of Natural England. The
efforts on behalf of the Appellant are evident in the no objection from the LPA Officers at the
point of determining the Application, nor Natural England in its role as statutory consultee.
10.13 In respect of the future Management Plan, advice was sought from the LPA during its
preparation, with the BDBC Biodiversity Officer commented that ‘in general everything
contained within the draft plan seems sensible and appropriate in terms of improving the
biodiversity of the woodland site’ and that she was ‘pleased to see the plan will cover a
minimum of 10 years’ (15th November 2012).
10.14 As set out within the evidence of Ms Spray in respect of Reason for Refusal No 4, it has been
shown that the function of the buffer zone, alongside proposed future management of the
Woodland SINCs will enable the retention, protection and enhancement of the woodland
habitat present.
10.15 In the context of Paragraph 14 of the NPPF and the undisputed need to release Greenfield
sites to make up for the serious and significant shortfall in housing, it has been demonstrated
in respect of Landscape, Highways and Ecology, that not only is the Appeal site appropriate
and suitable when assessed against all alternatives, but the proposal itself has been formed
in a collaborative manner and one that would not result in any adverse impacts that would
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
10.16 In respect of Reason for Refusal No 1 and the issue of prematurity, it is evident from the
LPA’s Statement of Case that the LPA itself no longer considers that the Reason for Refusal
can be substantiated in isolation at the Inquiry as a reason for refusing the Planning
Application. In light of this statement, it is of concern that the Reason for Refusal has not
Page 44 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
been withdrawn and the issue of prematurity is still being relied upon as a material
consideration of weight. This is wholly contrary to the conclusion of the Inspector and the
Secretary of State in the Marnel Park Appeal (CD11/1), that reliance upon prematurity in the
absence of a 5 year land supply was the very ‘antithesis’ of government policy.
10.17 It has been shown through the Statement of Common Ground (CD/1.5) and within Section 5
of this Proof of Evidence, that not only is there a shortage of land supply within the Borough,
but that shortfall is both serious and significant. Even if all of the supply the LPA considers
‘deliverable’ actually does come forward, then against the yet to be tested housing
requirement of 748 dpa, the supply would only equate to between 3.5 and 3.8 years. Given
the fragility of the LPA’s projected supply, which is inclusive of historic allocations that have
not come to fruition, coupled with the suppressed housing requirement it is seeking to have
found sound, the reality is likely to be somewhat worse and causing further delay in the
provision of open market and affordable housing to meet the demand and need for housing
within the Borough.
10.18 The NPPF and direction from the Secretary of State is clear in such a situation and that
applications should be approved unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly
and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. We know from the recommendation to approve the
Planning Application, that no statutory consultee objected to the proposal, with Natural
England and the County Highways and Education Authority all offering no objection.
Furthermore, when the benefits of allowing the Application was given due consideration by
the Local Planning Authority Officers, again, the judgement was made that approving the
Application would not cause adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits and that the need for housing was pressing. At no point has it been
shown or proven that benefits of allowing the Appeal would be outweighed by adverse
impacts, let alone any that are significant or demonstrable.
10.19 The Appeal site will deliver up to 310 dwellings, of which 40% will be of affordable tenure in a
sustainable location and indeed in a location of growth as proposed by the LPA within its
emerging Local Plan, within the wider South West Basingstoke area. As set out in within the
Proof of Evidence by Mr Bevis, the site benefits from good connections to local services,
facilities and public transport connections, the details of which have been discussed and
agreed with the County Highways Department over a significant period of time. Furthermore,
when compared to other proposed residential extensions identified as Category 1 Sites, the
LPA has concluded that delivery of the Appeal Site is more appropriate than eight others that
had been discounted, and given its location at the prime service centre of Basingstoke, the
site is inherently more sustainable than those extensions proposed at the remote villages.
Page 45 of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees
10.20 While little weight is afforded by the Appellant to the site’s identification within the Pre-
Submission Local Plan, weight can be attributed to the LPA’s own due diligence and site
assessment process that has since May 2010 concluded the Appeal Site as a Category 1
Site, and more recently, deemed required to come forward early in the Plan Period to meet
the housing need.
10.21 In respect of the capacity of the Appeal Site, the deviation from the previously agreed
capacity can be traced to a single Officer’s unfounded method of calculating density, and
specifically, the removal of land from the net developable area. No other proposed strategic
allocation and its capacity has been assessed in this manner, and therefore the approach is
also inconsistent and does not reflect the commonly accepted approach as set out within the
former PPG3 (Annex B). Indeed, the approach advocated by the former guidance, supported
by the Inspector as part of the Appeal at Pitt Manor in Winchester in 2012, and advocated by
Savills, has more recently been accepted in writing by the LPA on 1 May 2013 (CD10.9) as
being the correct Approach.
10.22 With the provision of the required on site accessible open space, non-accessible open space
and buffer space provided in accordance with the Council’s own requirements, at a density of
31.6 dpa, the Appeal site will deliver up to 310 dwellings, with the precise capacity to be
agreed at the reserve matters stage. Through this detailed design process, the LPA will
retain control over assessing the merits of the layout, siting, scale and appearance of the
development. There is no local policy, national policy or guidance which would support the
view neither of the Officer who made the judgement, nor indeed as set out in the
correspondence of 1 May 2013, do the LPA Officers now consider that the density should be
calculated in any other way other than that concluded within the former PPS3 Annex B.
10.23 With regard to the weight to be applied to Paragraph 14 of NPPF and the undisputed need to
release Greenfield Sites to make up for the serious and significant shortfall of housing that
exists, it has been demonstrated that in all aspects of the appeal proposal that not only is it
appropriate when considered against the alternatives, it would also not result in any adverse
impacts that would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
10.24 For the reasons given within my proof of evidence, I respectfully ask that the Appeal is
allowed.