janet dixon - ribble valley · janet dixon town planners ltd page 3 2. the proposal 2.1 the...

Applethwaite

Limited

Development of

8 no. bungalows

for the over 55s

Old Whalley

Nurseries

Clitheroe Road

Barrow

Planning Statement

November 2014

Janet Dixon

TOWN PLANNERS LIMITED

Residential development (8 bungalows), Old Whalley Nurseries, Barrow November 2014

Janet Dixon Town Planners Ltd Page 1

CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION 2

2. THE PROPOSAL 3

3. APPLICATION SITE AND SURROUNDINGS 4

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 6

5. DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY 7

6. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY 9

7. EMERGING LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK 12

8. OTHER RELEVANT POLICY / INFORMATION 15

9. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 16

10. CONCLUSION 33

11. APPENDICES 36

Mike Gee BA(Hons) MRTPI Janet Dixon Town Planners Ltd 144 Woone Lane Clitheroe Lancashire BB7 1BN 01200 425051 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Planning Statement is submitted in support of a full planning application

by Applethwaite Ltd for a residential development for the elderly (comprising

of eight bungalows for the over 55s) at Old Whalley Nurseries, Clitheroe

Road, Barrow. This Statement should be read in conjunction with the

following documents also submitted in support of the application:

Design and Access Statement – MCK Architects;

Plans and drawings illustrating the proposal – MCK Architects;

Arboricultural Impact Assessment – Bowland Tree Consultancy;

Phase 1 Habitat Survey - Envirotech;

Topographical Survey – MCK Architects; and

Phase 1 and 2 Engineering and Environmental; Assessment – CODA;

Flooding and Drainage Assessment – CODA.



2. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The application is made in full for a residential development for the elderly

(over 55s) of eight bungalows.

2.2 The Design and access Statement and site layout plan shows how the site is

to be developed. The eight bungalows are to be arranged around a short cul-

de-sac off Clitheroe Road, with off-street parking and landscaping provision.



3. APPLICATION SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

3.1 The development site has an area of approximately 0.45 hectares (with the

area of frontage highway land required for access, the overall area is

approximately 0.5 hectares). It is situated at the southern end of Barrow,

within a part of the settlement known locally as Lamb Roe. The site

comprises mainly of a hardstanding area, with some cleared ground and

some overgrown areas. The levels rise gently across the site from Clitheroe

Road to the north east site corner. The only building at the site is a derelict

greenhouse, the site having last been used in July 2011 as a horticultural

nursery. There are no trees, hedges or bushes standing within the site. There

are, however, hedgerows that mark the western and northern site

boundaries, with occasional trees within the hedge lines.

3.2 The application site is bounded to the west by Clitheroe Road, with the car

park to The Eagle Public House directly opposite. Immediately to the north of

the application site is the site of the former Pendle Garage. To the east and

south of the application site are open agricultural fields. There is an existing

vehicular access off Clitheroe Road at a point mid-way along the site’s

frontage. In the immediate vicinity of the application site is a variety of

development, including Whalley Industrial Park (on the east side of Clitheroe

Road) and housing, The Eagle Public House and Berkins’ delicatessen and

gift shop (on the west side of Clitheroe Road). The former Pendle Garage site

is presently under development for 28 dwellings.

3.3 More generally, Barrow is a settlement with a mix of housing, including

traditional stone terraced cottages and modern housing development of

suburban character, and a modern Business Park. There is a good range of

local services and facilities, beyond those referred to above. They include

Barrow Primary School (1.0km from the application site), a general (Co-

operative) store (1.0km from the application site), a church, a pub, a mobile

library, several take-aways / restaurants and many businesses providing local

employment opportunities. Bus services run along Clitheroe Road at



frequent intervals during the day, providing direct connections to Clitheroe

and Whalley (every 15 minutes) and other destinations such as Preston,

Blackburn and Skipton (service intervals of 30 to 60 minutes). More

extensive shopping, community and public transport (including rail) services

and facilities are to be found in Whalley town centres, some 1.5km to the

south and Clitheroe, some 4km to the north.



4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 Outline planning permission was granted in November 2012 (reference

3/2011/0784) for the erection of six 4 / 5 - bedroom houses and two 1 -

bedroom bungalows. The planning permission remains extant.



5. DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

5.1 The relevant part of the Development Plan for the purposes of this planning

application is the adopted Ribble Valley Local Plan. The following saved

policies of the Ribble Valley Local Plan (adopted in June 1998 and written to

plan for development over the period 1991 - 2006) are relevant to the

proposal.

5.3 Policy G1: Development Control – all development proposals will be expected

to provide a high standard of building design and landscape quality. The

various detailed criteria to be applied in deciding planning applications are set

out in the policy.

5.4 Policy G4: Settlement Strategy – within specified villages (including Barrow)

planning permission will be granted for proposals falling within certain

categories, including the use of infill sites not defined as essential open

spaces.

5.5 Policy G5: Settlement Strategy – outside the main settlements and village

boundaries planning consent will only be granted for small scale

developments which fall within specified categories, including sites to be

developed for local needs housing.

5.6 Policy H2: Dwellings in the Open Countryside – outside the settlement

boundaries residential development will be limited to specified categories.

5.7 Policy H20: Affordable Housing – states that on sites other than infill sites

within the village boundaries and on land identified as open countryside

planning permission will only be granted for 100% affordable needs housing

developments.



5.8 Policy H21: Affordable Housing – requires details of the methods by which

the accommodation will be sold or let, managed and retained as suitable for

its original purpose.

5.9 Policy ENV3: Open Countryside – development will be required to be in

keeping with the character of the landscape area and reflect vernacular style.

5.10 Policy ENV7: Species Protection – development proposals having an adverse

effect on wildlife species protected by law will not be granted planning

permission unless there is appropriate mitigation.

5.11 Policy ENV13: Landscape Protection – development proposals which harm

important landscape features will be refused.

5.12 Policy T1: Transport – a list is provided of criteria to which the Council will

attach considerable weight in deciding planning applications. The criteria

include the availability and adequacy of public transport and the location of

development in areas which maintain and improve choice to walk, cycle or

catch public transport rather than drive between homes and facilities.

5.13 Policy T7: Parking Provision – requires all development proposals to provide

adequate car parking and servicing space.

5.14 The Local Plan Proposals Map identifies the application site as land outside

of (but close to) a main settlement / village boundary (Policy G4) and within

open countryside (Policies G5 and ENV3).



6. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY

6.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) clearly states ‘that the

purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of

sustainable development’ (paragraph 6). Paragraph 197 confirms that ‘in

assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities

should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development’.

Paragraph 14 states that a presumption in favour of sustainable development

is at the heart of the NPPF. It goes on to say that ‘for decision-taking this

means:

• Approving development proposals that accord with the development

plan without delay; and

• Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are

out-of-date, granting planning permission unless:

- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and

demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the

policies in this Framework as a whole; or

- specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be

restricted’.

6.2 Paragraph 7 refers to the three dimensions of sustainable development –

economic, social and environmental. An elaboration of the Government’s

view of what sustainable development means in practice for the planning

system is detailed later in the NPPF. Relevant parts are referred to at

paragraph 6.6 below.

6.3 The NPPF (paragraphs 2, 11, 12 and 196) confirms that planning law

requires that applications for planning permission be determined in

accordance with the development plan unless material considerations

indicate otherwise, ie the development plan is the starting point for decision

making.



6.4 The NPPF highlights the importance of development plans being kept up to

date (paragraph 12). Decision taking in the absence of an up to date

development plan is addressed at paragraph 14 (see 5.23 above). At

paragraph 214 it is confirmed that ‘for 12 months from the day of publication,

decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted

since 2004 even if there is a degree of conflict with this Framework’.

Paragraph 215 continues by stating that ‘in other cases and following this 12-

month period, due weight should be given to relevant polices in existing plans

according to the degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the

policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater weight that

may be given)’. Paragraph 49 provides further guidance on the matter. It

states ‘housing applications should be considered in the context of the

presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the

supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning

authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites’.

6.5 Paragraphs 2, 8, 13, 196 and 212 confirm that the NPPF is a material

consideration in planning decisions.

6.6 Paragraph 17 encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has

been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high

environmental value.

6.7 The main body of the NPPF addresses the components of sustainable

development. The aspects of those components most relevant to the

application are:

‘promoting sustainable transport’ – decisions should take account of

whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all

people and development should only be refused where the residual

impacts of development are severe (paragraph 32);



‘delivering a wide choice of high quality homes’ – local planning

authorities are expected to boost the supply of housing (paragraph

47). In this regard, local planning authorities should ‘identify and

update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to

provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing

requirements’. Paragraph 47 goes on to require an additional ‘buffer’ of

5% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Local

planning authorities should increase the ‘buffer’ to 20% where there

has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing;

‘meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal

change’ – it is expected that ‘inappropriate development in areas at

risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from

areas at highest risk’ (paragraph 100) and that ‘when determining

planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood

risk is not increased elsewhere’ (paragraph 103);

‘conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ – in deciding

planning applications local planning authorities should aim to conserve

and enhance biodiversity by applying various principles including

resisting development resulting in the loss or deterioration of

irreplaceable habitats (paragraph 118); and

‘conserving and enhancing the historic environment’ – the significance

of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal should be

identified and assessed. The level of detail should be proportionate to

the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand

the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of the heritage

asset (paragraph 128).

6.7 At paragraph 216 the NPPF addresses the issue of weight to be accorded to

emerging plans. It states that weight may be given to relevant policies from

the date of publication, according to the stage of preparation, the extent of

unresolved objections and consistency with the policies of the NPPF.



7. EMERGING LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

7.1 The Ribble Valley Core Strategy is currently at the examination stage. Public

hearings were held in January 2014. However, following these hearings, the

Inspector expressed a number of fundamental concerns regarding the

soundness of the Plan. As a result of the Inspector’s concerns, the Council

reviewed its intentions for the Plan and published a number of proposed main

modifications to the Core Strategy. These related, in particular, to a further

increase in housing provision levels / requirements and significant changes to

the distribution of housing between settlements. These were the subject of

two consultation periods ending in July and September 2014 respectively.

Significant objections have been made to the Plan and the recent proposed

main modifications. The further objections to the proposed main modifications

have yet to be examined and reported upon by the Inspector. Indeed, there is

a very real prospect of further public hearing sessions being held.

7.2 The following key statements / policies of the Core Strategy (as submitted in

September 2012) are relevant to consideration of the application proposal.

7.3 Key Statement DS1 (Development Strategy) – seeks to direct the majority of

new housing development to the strategic (Standen) site and the main urban

areas of the Borough. However, the distribution of housing development as

set out in this policy and at Appendix 2 of the Core Strategy also provides for

a significant level of housing provision within the ‘other settlements’ including

Barrow.

7.4 Key Statement DS2 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) –

sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development and reiterates

the provisions of paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

7.5 Key Statement H1 (Housing Provision) – makes provision for 4000 dwellings

over the period 2008 to 2028 at a rate of 200 dwellings per year.



7.6 Key Statement H3 (Affordable and Special Needs Housing) – in all locations

(other than within Clitheroe and Longridge) developments of five or more

dwelling units are expected to deliver 30% affordable housing. Reference is

also made to providing housing for the elderly being a priority for the Council.

7.7 Policy DMG1 (General Considerations) – sets out various criteria to be

considered in assessing planning applications, including a high standard of

building design, proposed development being sympathetic to existing land

uses, highway safety and not adversely affecting the amenities of the area.

7.8 Policy DMG2 (Strategic Considerations) – expects development to be in

accordance with the Development Strategy and that development proposals

in defined settlements should consolidate, expand or round-off development

so that it is closely related to the main built up areas, ensuring this is

appropriate to the scale of, and in keeping with, the existing settlement.

7.9 Policy DMG3 (Transport and Mobility) – in assessing proposals considerable

weight will be attached to the availability and adequacy of public transport

and associated infrastructure. The assessment criteria listed also include the

location of development in areas which maintain and improve choice to walk,

cycle or catch public transport rather than drive between homes and facilities.

7.10 Policy DME1 (Protecting Trees and Woodlands) – sets out a presumption

against the clearance of broad-leaved woodland. Where there is likely to be a

substantial effect on tree cover a detailed arboricultural survey should

accompany planning applications.

7.11 Policy DME2 (Landscape and Townscape Protection) – development

proposals will be refused which significantly harm important landscape or

landscape features.

7.12 The following policies contained in the latest (July and September 2014)

rounds of proposed main modifications to the Core Strategy are relevant to

consideration of the application proposal.



7.13 Key Statement DS1 (Development Strategy) - seeks to direct the majority of

new housing development to the strategic (Standen) site and the principal

settlements of the Borough (Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley). Development

is also focused towards nine Tier 1 Villages (including Barrow), regarded as

being the most sustainable of the 32 defined settlements. Within the

remaining 23 defined settlements (Tier 2 Villages), development will need to

meet proven local needs or deliver regeneration benefits. The planned

distribution of housing is detailed in Appendix 2. Whilst Barrow is recognised

as a Tier 1 Village settlement, and therefore one of the more sustainable

defined settlements, no further housing development is proposed at Barrow.

It is stated that this distribution takes account of the large commitment to

housing that exists as a result of planning permissions at Barrow.

7.14 Key Statement H1 (Housing Provision) – makes increased provision for 5,600

dwellings over the period 2008 to 2028 at a rate of 280 dwellings per year.

7.15 Policy DMG2 (Strategic Considerations) - expects development to be in

accordance with the Development Strategy (as set out in Policy DS1). The

policy also states that ‘development proposals in defined settlements’ (which

include Barrow) ‘should consolidate, expand or round off development so that

it is closely related to the main built up areas, ensuring this is appropriate to

the scale of, and in keeping with, the existing settlement’.

7.16 With the exception of the Standen site no site allocations are made by the

Core Strategy. These are to follow in a Site Allocations Local Plan. The

Council has yet to publish a consultation draft Site Allocations Local Plan.



8. OTHER RELEVANT POLICY / INFORMATION

Housing Land Supply

8.1 In a report to the Council’s Planning and Development Committee, at its

meeting on 18 September 2014, an update was provided on housing land

supply to 30 June 2014. This showed a total supply of 2642 units, equating

to a 5.10 years’ supply based on the Core Strategy main modifications

housing provision levels of 280 dwellings per year, and applying the

Sedgefield method.

Commuted Sum Protocol for Affordable Housing

8.2 At its meeting on 5 June 20914 the Council’s Health and Housing Committee

considered a report on an affordable housing commuted sum protocol for.

The report outlined circumstances in which a commuted sum protocol may be

considered. This included where affordable housing need in the parish has

been met through affordable housing delivery. The report referred to various

mechanisms for calculating the commuted sum and the arrangements for its

use to provide additional affordable housing elsewhere in the Borough. The

report was approved.

Pre-Application Advice

8.3 Prior to submission of this application, the applicant sought advice from

Ribble Valley Borough Council on the prospects of securing planning

permission for a scheme of 12 dwellings. The advice is reproduced at

Appendix A. As a result of that advice, the scheme has been substantially

amended to the proposal now presented for a lower density development of

eight bungalows designed to be Lifetime Homes Standard compliant and

intended for the over-55s.



9. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

9.1 Reflecting the nature of the proposal, the site’s planning history, its context,

relevant national and local planning policies, and pre-application advice, the

main planning issues for consideration are as follows:

the principle of the development, having regard to recent planning

decisions;

the principle of the development, having regard to the Development

Plan;

the principle of the development, having regard to the emerging Core

Strategy;

the principle of the development, having regard to the National

Planning Policy Framework and the housing land supply position;

the principle of the development, having regard to the National

Planning Policy Framework and sustainability considerations;

layout, design and visual amenity considerations;

the highway safety implications of the development;

the biodiversity implications of the development;

other planning considerations.

Each of these issues is addressed in turn below.

The Principle of the Development

Recent Planning Decisions

9.2 The principle of the site’s re-development for housing has already been

established through the grant of planning permission for six dwellings as

detailed at section 4.1 above. Accordingly, there can be no objection to the

principle of the site’s development for housing as now proposed. That is

particularly the case as the proposal is for Lifetime Homes Standard



compliant bungalows for the over 55s, for which there is an identified

particular need within Ribble Valley.

9.3 It should also be noted that the Council granted planning permission

(3/2012/0169 - currently being implemented) earlier in 2014 for the

development of the adjoining former Pendle Garage site at Barrow with 28

dwellings. In consideration of the application at the Pendle Garage site, the

Planning Officer in his report to the Planning and Development Committee at

its meeting on 10 October 2013 observed, on the principle of the

development, that:

“The site lies within the currently defined Open Countryside but it should

be noted that the current settlement boundaries of the District Wide Local

Plan (DWLP) are out of date and pending future work on new boundaries

within a site allocations DPD, as yet no replacement boundaries are in

place.

NPPF paragraph 55 emphasises that the development of isolated homes

in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special

circumstances. This involves a judgement as to whether the site is

isolated. Given its position opposite a public house, adjacent to an

industrial park and within close proximity to existing dwellings it would be

difficult to consider such a development as isolated and therefore would

not directly contradict paragraph 55.”

and

“Therefore, given that the site can be considered as sustainable in NPPF

terms and, while being in the Open Countryside, is not isolated”.

9.4 Planning permissions for other housing developments of similar scale to the

proposal have also been granted planning permission in recent years on

nearby sites on Clitheroe Road (eg 3/2012/0617 and 3/2013/0511).



9.5 The Council’s acceptance of these sites as in a sustainable location (all being

located outside of the Barrow settlement boundary, but well-related to the built

up form of the settlement) further indicates that there should be no objection

to the principle of the site’s development for eight bungalows.

The Provisions of the Development Plan

9.6 The Development Plan currently in force is the adopted Ribble Valley Local

Plan. The Proposals Map shows the application site to be outside of the

settlement boundary of Barrow, although well related to the urban form of

Barrow. Being outside of the settlement boundary the site is subject to Local

Plan policies G5 and H2, which seek to limit development. These policies do

not preclude housing development, however the proposal would not be

compliant with the policy limitations. The weight to be given to these policies

has to be considered in relation to other matters. Irrespective of the five year

supply of housing land (reviewed later at sections 9.14 – 9.19) the Council

acknowledges that the Local Plan period (1991 – 2006) has now long-expired.

The contextual circumstances and policies have since changed since

adoption of the Local Plan in 1998. There is a need for further land releases

for housing beyond the Local Plan settlement boundaries and including

greenfield sites.

9.7 In more detail, the reasons why the specific Local Plan policies G5 and H2

should not be given any significant weight in deciding the application are set

out below:

the Local Plan only provides for development needs for the period up to

2006. That the Local Plan is ‘out of date’ has been confirmed by the

Council. A report to the Council’s Planning and Development

Committee on 17 June 2010 acknowledged that there is ‘very limited

capacity (for development and growth) within existing tightly drawn

settlement boundaries and (there are) no further (Local Plan)



allocations of housing land in particular to be brought forward’. The

report also states that Core Strategy options developed so far would

require the release of extensive areas of greenfield land. The situation

remains unchanged;

circumstances have changed considerably since preparation of the

Local Plan. The Local Plan was prepared in the context of the then

current Lancashire Structure Plan (1991-2006). That document has

since been superseded by the Lancashire Structure Plan Review

(2001-2016) and, in turn, by the now revoked RSS (adopted in 2008),

which provided for higher levels of housing growth in the Borough; and

on the basis of latest evidence, and for the purposes of its Core

Strategy, the Council has adopted a higher housing provision figure

(280 dwellings per year) than within the RSS and within the originally

submitted and previous main modifications to the Core Strategy.

9.8 Within the context outlined above, and given the recent planning history

relating to the site and nearby sites (as described at sections 9.3 and 9.4

above), it would be more appropriate, in relation to the adopted Local Plan, to

consider the site as one within the settlement boundary of Barrow. Thus,

subject to Local Plan Policy G4. Policy G4 is accepting of the principle of

housing development within the villages, including Barrow. It states that

planning permission will be granted for proposals falling within a number of

categories. One of those categories (b) is ‘the use of infill sites not defined as

essential open spaces’.

9.9 The supporting text to Policy G4 defines ‘infill development’ as:

‘the filling of small gaps within small groups of houses where:

i) the site is not designated as essential open space;

ii) proposals which would not lead to ribbon development or a fragmented

pattern of development;



iii) development would reflect the character of the village in terms of

scale, design and density and not have any detrimental impact on the

locality.’

9.5 It is accepted that the site is not an ‘infill’ site in the strict sense of the term.

However, given that there is an extant planning permission in force at the site,

the proposal can reasonably be regarded as within the spirit of ‘infill’. In

consideration of the above points, it is noted that:

i) unlike some other sites within Barrow, the application site is not one

identified on the Proposals Map as ‘essential open space’ and thereby

protected from development that would compromise its visual quality /

value of openness / recreational value by the provisions of Local Plan

Policy G6;

ii) the proposal adjoins and is well-related to the built up area of Barrow.

Indeed, the principle of the site’s development for housing has already

been established. It is, thus, evident the proposal would not result in

either ribbon development or a fragmented pattern of development,

which the policy understandably seeks to avoid;

iii) the proposal is for the redevelopment of a previously developed

‘brownfield’ site; and

iv) the form of development proposed would have no detrimental impact

on the character and appearance of the locality. The issue of visual

amenity is addressed in a subsequent section of this Statement.

9.6 Having regard to the above, it is concluded that the principle of the small

scale (eight bungalows) housing development at the site, as proposed, would

be compliant with the intent of Development Plan policy relating to the

settlement strategy and distribution of development as set out in the Ribble

Valley Local Plan. Other policies of the Local Plan relevant to the application

relate to more detailed planning considerations. These are addressed in

subsequent sections of this Statement.



9.10 Irrespective of this conclusion, the Council accepts the Local Plan settlement

boundaries to be out of date. Accordingly, minimal weight can be given to the

specific and restrictive adopted Local Plan policy designations (Policies G5

and H2) relating to the application site and it is submitted that it would be

inappropriate to consider the proposal in that context. Rather, greater weight

should be given to the policies of the NPPF and its presumption in favour of

sustainable development. Specifically, whether there are any adverse

impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits

associated with the development. The benefits of the development are

considered in at section 9.20 below. Issues drawn from NPPF policies and

relevant aspects of sustainable development are also examined in

subsequent sections. Before doing so, the provisions of the emerging Core

Strategy are considered.

The Provisions of the Emerging Core Strategy

9.7 Ribble Valley Borough Council has engaged in a long process of evidence

gathering for the Core Strategy and produced the first Issues and Options

consultation leaflet in 2007. Subsequently, optional strategies for the

distribution of housing development were consulted upon in 2010 and 2011.

9.8 Following publication of the Core Strategy in early 2012, the Core Strategy

was submitted in October 2012. The distribution of housing development

proposed in the submission document provided for a residual requirement

(having taken account of planning permissions granted) of 583 dwellings

within the ‘other settlements’, ie those settlements other than the main towns

of Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley and the Standen strategic site, out of a

total residual requirement of 2,534 dwellings. The ‘other settlements’ include

Barrow.



9.9 In August 2013, the Council published proposed main modifications to the

submitted Core Strategy document. Consequent upon evidence of an

increased housing requirement, the proposed main modifications provided for

a total residual requirement of 2,767 dwellings and a residual requirement for

the ‘other settlements’ (including Barrow) of 732 dwellings.

9.10 Following the public examination hearings in early 2014, and subsequent

comments to the Council from the Inspector, the Council published further

proposed main modifications to the submitted Core Strategy document.

These were consulted upon in periods ending in July and September 2014.

The proposed main modifications provided for a further increased housing

requirement, and substantial changes to the proposed distribution of housing

between settlements. The latest consultation periods have led to the

submission of further and significant objections. The further objections to the

proposed main modifications have yet to be examined and reported upon by

the Inspector. Indeed, there is a very real prospect of further public hearings

being called.

9.11 The principle of the application proposal is compliant with the submission

version of the Core Strategy (as referred to at 9.8 above) and the subsequent

proposed main modifications (as referred to at 9.9 above). The reason being

that Barrow is one of the listed ‘other settlements’ to which a significant level

of housing is directed. Indeed, many planning permissions have been

granted by the Council for small scale residential developments, as per the

application proposal, and larger scale residential developments within the

listed ‘other settlements’. Indeed, some of these are referred to at sections

9.3 and 9.4 above.

9.12 The latest proposed main modifications include a substantial alteration to

Policy DS1 (Development Strategy). It is accepted that the application

proposal would be contrary to Policy DS1 (latest main modification version) in

that it adopts a very restrictive approach to housing development in Barrow,



even though it is one of the Tier 1 settlements, ie one of the more sustainable

of the ‘other settlements’. That said, reference has already been made to the

Council’s continued modification of the policy and many objections submitted.

Given the scale and nature of representations, it is contended that significant

weight cannot be afforded to the policy in deciding the application proposal.

Indeed, Inspectors deciding recent appeals have reached the conclusion that

only limited weight can be afforded to Core Strategy policy

(APP/T2350/A/14/2222117 and 2222255 refer). This conclusion on the

weight to be applied to the emerging Core Strategy policy is entirely

consistent with advice contained in the NPPF. The appropriate approach is to

consider the proposal in the context of the NPPF’s presumption in favour of

sustainable development.

9.13 Policy DMG2 expects development to be in accordance with the

Development Strategy (as set out in Policy DS1). As such, the policy cannot

be afforded significant weight in deciding the application proposal for the

reasons set out at 9.12 above. The policy also states that ‘development

proposals in defined settlements’ (which include Barrow) ‘should consolidate,

expand or round off development so that it is closely related to the main built

up areas, ensuring this is appropriate to the scale of, and in keeping with, the

existing settlement’. The application proposal would be compliant with this

aspect of the policy, in that the proposal is very evidently closely related to

and would consolidate the established settlement pattern of Barrow.

The Provisions of the NPPF in relation to the Housing Land Supply Position

9.14 As reported at 8.1 above, the Council claims a 5.1 year supply of housing

land. However, an examination of the calculation / composition of this supply

suggests that the Council has a lesser supply figure. In particular:

a. the Council has a record of a persistent under delivery of housing over

past years, which is acknowledged by the Council. Accordingly, the



20% buffer referred to in NPPF paragraph 47 applies. The Council has

applied the 20% buffer to the five year requirement derived from its

latest annual housing provision level of 280 dwellings. That is, a 20%

buffer on 1400 dwellings (280 x 5), making a total requirement of 1680

(1400 + 20% or 280). This, incorrectly, takes no account of the shortfall

in housing provision since the start of the plan period (ie from 2008).

The Council identify the shortfall to be 910 dwellings. To be correct,

the 20% buffer should be applied to this figure. This results in an

additional housing requirement of 182 dwellings (ie 20% of 910), and

produces a total five year requirement of 2772 (compared to the

Council’s figure of 2590) or an annual requirement of 554 (compared

to the Council’s figure of 518);

b. the Council considers that the Higher Standen Farm site will deliver

300 dwellings (of the total site yield of 1040 dwellings and a mix of

other uses on a site of 51.4 hectares) within a five year period. The

five year delivery figure is based on 100 dwellings being completed in

each of the last three years of the five year period. This is not

considered to be a credible or realistic figure based on our knowledge

of the site and the circumstances relating to its development. The

outline planning permission has been subject to a judicial review

challenge, for which a Court hearing date has only recently been

heard. The development is the largest single housing site in the

Borough. The lead-in times before any start on site associated with a

development of its scale and complexity will inevitably be long. The

Council has assumed that a start on the development can be made in

sufficient time for delivery of 100 units per year for three years. That is,

dwellings being completed continuously at that rate from 1 July 2016.

Given the advance infrastructure to be provided to serve the site prior

to delivery of houses on site, a commencement of development would

be required at least a year in advance of that date. That is seven

months from now. There is no reasonable prospect of that occurring

given that no application has yet been made for approval of any



reserved mattes, nor for the discharge of the numerous pre-

commencement conditions imposed on the outline planning

permission. Finally, there is only a single point for general vehicular

access to the site. A housing developer can normally expect to deliver

a maximum of 25 to 30 units a year from a single site. A lower figure

would apply where there are multiple developers. In this instance, it is

reasonable to assume that there would be only two or (at most) three

separate developers. Having regard to all these factors, it is submitted

that the Council’s delivery figure is grossly over-inflated. A more

realistic (but still optimistic figure) would be the delivery of 100 to 150

units over the five year period; and

c. the Council considers that the Whalley Road, Barrow site will deliver

300 dwellings (of the total site yield of 504) within a five year period.

The outline planning permission was granted in February 2014. The

Council has assumed that a start on the development can be made in

sufficient time for delivery of 100 units per year for three years, with

four concurrent developers. That is, dwellings being completed

continuously at that rate from 1 July 2016. This is not considered to be

a credible or realistic figure based on our knowledge of the site and the

circumstances relating to its development. Given the infrastructure

requirements for a site of this size, a commencement of development

would be required at least a six months in advance of that date. That is

only 13 months from now. There is little or no reasonable prospect of

that occurring given that no application has yet been made for

approval of any reserved matter, nor for the discharge of the pre-

commencement conditions imposed on the outline planning

permission. A housing developer can normally expect to deliver a

maximum of 25 to 30 units a year from a single site. A lower figure

would apply where there are multiple developers. Whilst this site has

scope for multiple developers, it is highly unlikely that four would

develop concurrently. It is certainly the case that four (or fewer)

developers would be unable to achieve a delivery of 100 units a year



on such a site in normal market conditions. Having regard to all these

factors, it is submitted that the Council’s delivery figure is grossly

overinflated. A more realistic (but still optimistic figure) would be the

delivery of 100 to 150 units over the five year period.

9.17 Applying these adjustments, individually or cumulatively, results in the

following housing supply figures:

a. applying the 20% adjustment as above – the annual requirement is

calculated to be 554 dwellings, against the Council’s identified five

year supply of 2642 dwellings. This results in a supply of 4.77 years

(2642 / 518 = 4.77);

b. applying the adjustment as above for Higher Standen Farm – the

identified five year supply would be 2492 (ie Council’s supply of 2642,

discounted by a minimum of 150 dwellings). This results in a supply

of 4.81 years (revised supply of 2492 / annual requirement of 518 =

4.81);

c. applying the adjustment as above for Whalley Road, Barrow – the

identified five year supply would be 2492 (ie Council’s supply of 2642,

discounted by a minimum of 150 dwellings). This results in a supply

of 4.81 years (revised supply of 2492 / annual requirement of 518 =

4.81);

d. applying all of the above adjustments - the annual requirement is

calculated to be 554 dwellings. The identified five year supply would

be 2342 (ie Council’s supply of 2642, discounted by a minimum of 300

dwellings). This results in a supply of 4.23 years (revised supply of

2342 / annual requirement of 554 = 4.23);

9.18 Having regard to the above, it is concluded that the Council’s calculation of its

housing land supply figure is unreliable and that it is not able to demonstrate

a five year supply of housing land.



9.19 One of the key intentions of the NPPF, as clearly set out at paragraph 47, is

to boost significantly the supply of housing land. Local authorities are

expected to identify a five year supply of deliverable housing land. It has

been evidenced that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply

of housing land. The proposal would contribute positively to the supply of

housing land in Ribble Valley. This is an added and significant factor that

weighs in favour of the proposed development. Should it be judged

(incorrectly in our view) that there is a five year supply of housing land

available, it should be noted that to boost significantly the supply of housing

land remains one of the main objectives of the NPPF. There is no local or

national planning policy basis upon which to resist development even if there

is a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. That is, the Core Strategy

figures should not be regarded as a maximum or ceiling. Rather, the principle

of the development needs to be considered in relation to the NPPF

presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The Provisions of the NPPF in relation to Sustainability Considerations

9.20 In common with the developments granted planning permission on the

nearby sites (referred to at 9.3 and 9.4 above), the proposed development is

in a sustainable location. There are benefits associated with the development

in relation to each of the dimensions of sustainable development as listed in

the NPPF, paragraph 7. These are summarised below:

economic – the construction of new housing would contribute to

economic growth during the construction phase and through the

introduction of new households to the area;

social – the proposal would widen housing choice by providing, in

particular, housing for the elderly (over 55s), for which there is a

identified need; and

environmental – the proposal provides an opportunity to deliver

development on a brownfield site having an extant consent for

residential development, which has no particular wildlife value, does



not fall within an area identified as being at risk of flooding, and in a

manner that would have no harmful impacts on the built and historic

environment and would have a lesser outward landscape and visual

impact than the development proposed in the extant planning

permission.

9.21 Having regard to various specific aspects of sustainability referred to within

the NPPF:

the proposal provides for a logical development well-related to the built

up fabric of Barrow, as such the proposal respects the form of the

settlement;

the proposal is for the redevelopment of previously developed land,

which is not of high environmental value;

the site is conveniently located for regular bus services, with bus stops

adjacent to and opposite. The services link directly to the nearby larger

towns of Whalley (1.5km from the application site) and Clitheroe (4km

from the application site), and also the city of Preston. A rail station

providing direct services to Blackburn (with onward links to

Manchester, Bolton and Preston) is located at Clitheroe

there is a good range of services and facilities within Barrow, within

walking and / or cycling distance of the application site, as detailed at

3.3 above. A still wider range of services, facilities and employment

opportunities within the larger towns of Clitheroe and Whalley including

supermarkets, comparison goods shops, including clothes and DIY,

banks and other financial services, solicitors, and Council offices;

the nearby larger settlements of Whalley and Clitheroe are within easy

cycling distance;

the site is not within influencing distance of or have any adverse

impact upon any designated or non-designated heritage assets;

the site has no wildlife or ecological value, nor would the proposed

development impact upon the wildlife value of any other site; and



the site is not within an area identified by the Environment Agency at

being at risk of flooding. Nor, would the development result in an

increased risk of flooding at other locations.

9.22 The application site is in a sustainable location and, having regard to the

above, it is submitted that the application site would be appropriate for a

development of the scale proposed, there are a range of benefits associated

with the development, and the proposed development would constitute

sustainable development (for which there is a presumption in favour), when

considered against the requirements of the NPPF.

Layout, Design and Visual Amenity Considerations

9.23 Local Plan Policy G1 and Core Strategy Policy DMG1 express design criteria

for new development in only very generalised terms, with no other specific

design guidance made available by the Council. The application site is not

within a Conservation Area, nor near to one, nor are there any other policies

or other designations that signal the local area to be of any special

architectural or townscape value. Indeed, the local area is marked by a

variety of different building styles, scale and ages.

9.24 The development is well-related to the existing built up area of Barrow. The

single-storey scale and form of the development is such that it would have no

undue outward impact, in particular within the area of adjoining countryside.

Indeed, the proposal would have a lesser outward visual and landscape

impact than the development previously approved for the site, which involved

the erection of large (4 / 5 – bedroom houses). The proposed development is

shown to retain the existing vegetation; in particular the hedge along the

site’s road frontage would help to soften the appearance of the development.

Additional planting will be carried out as a part of the development. In

particular, hedgerow planting to the site’s outer (southern and eastern)

boundaries would assist in absorbing the development into the local

landscape without visual intrusion. The development will utilise a palate of



materials appropriate to the area, with reconstituted stone to the main

facades, render and grey roof tiles. In short, the proposed development

would consolidate the existing form of development at Barrow with no harmful

outward visual or landscape impact.

The Highway Safety Implications of the Development

9.31 Provision for a safe access / highway arrangement for the development has

been made. The submitted plans demonstrate that the required 2.4 by 90

metre visibility splay can be satisfactorily provided. Furthermore, appropriate

junction radii are provided to the site entrance and appropriate highway

geometry within the site to allow for the safe movement of vehicles. A

pedestrian footway is to be provided along the site’s Clitheroe Road frontage

(to the north of the entrance) to tie in with the footway to be provided as part

of the redevelopment of the adjoining Pendle Garage site. Adequate off-

street parking provision is made within the curtilage of each of the proposed

dwellings. Accordingly, the application proposal is compliant with the relevant

sections of Local Plan Policy G1 and emerging Core Strategy Policy DMG1,

and there are no grounds for the application proposal to be resisted on

highway safety grounds.

Other Miscellaneous Planning Considerations

9.32 The applicant is committed to achieving high standards of energy

conservation and the installation of low energy / energy efficient appliances

within the proposed development to meet, and where practicable, exceed the

requirements of the Building Regulations.

9.33 The Council generally seek the delivery of on-site affordable housing, at a

rate of 30% on sites yielding five or more units. However, the Council’s

Strategic Housing Officer has confirmed that on-site affordable housing would

not be required within Barrow. The reason is that within Barrow there is

already sufficient affordable housing being provided. In any event, it should



be noted that for the proposed development, the applicant is trialling the

provision of an exclusively over-55s development of bungalows. To reflect

the target market the bungalows have been designed to be Lifetimes Homes

Standard complaint. If successful, it is hoped that this development format

can be rolled out to other potential development sites in the Borough, given

the statements by the Council that there is a particular need for this form of

accommodation. The delivery of such specific accommodation inevitably

impacts upon the floorspace and yield achievable from the development;

bungalows have a larger footprint than houses and deliver less overall

floorspace. Accordingly, the applicant is promoting the development on the

basis of the delivery of elderly persons’ accommodation being in lieu of

affordable housing provision.

9.34 There are adequate separation distances provided between the proposed

development and the dwellings presently under construction at the adjoining

former Pendle Garage site and, as such, there is no impact upon the

amenities that occupiers of other housing may expect to enjoy, by reason of

loss of privacy, overbearing or overshadowing. Conversely, the future

occupiers of the proposed bungalows are afforded good standards of privacy

etc.

9.35 A phase 1 habitat survey of the application site has been carried out and is

submitted in support of the proposed development. The report shows that no

evidence of protected species at or in the near vicinity of the site was found,

and the limited vegetation at the site was found to be of low ecological

significance. Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposed development

would have no adverse impacts upon biodiversity interests either at the site

or in the locality.

9.36 An arboricultural impact assessment has been carried out and is submitted in

support of the proposed development. It identifies the trees and hedgerows at

the site, their value and the root protection areas. All identified trees and

hedgerows will be retained and the development to be carried out is beyond



the reach of the root protection areas. It is the applicant’s intention to protect

the trees and hedgerows during the course of the development.

9.37 The applicant has commissioned a desk top and site investigation report /

ground contamination risk assessment. The report is submitted with the

application for the Council’s consideration. The report concludes that there

are no reasons to preclude the residential development of the site.

9.38 All necessary services – gas, electricity, sewers, water, phone / broadband –

are available in the vicinity of the site and sufficient capacity is available to

serve the development

9.39 The site lies within the Environment Agency Flood Risk Zone 1 (a less than 1

in 1,000 annual probability of river or sea flooding). That is, within an area of

lowest flood risk to which NPPF expects development to be directed. With

appropriate surface water drainage arrangements, which may be dealt with

by way of condition, the development should not be at undue risk of flooding

and would not increase flood risk elsewhere.



10. CONCLUSION

10.1 Barrow has been identified as one of the more sustainable ‘Tier 1’

settlements in the Borough, beyond the three main towns of Clitheroe,

Whalley and Longridge. A number of planning permissions for housing

development on sites in Barrow have been granted by the Council, including

the application site. This reflects the fact that Barrow is a sustainable location

for new development and its ability to accommodate new development. It is

inevitable, with time and specific developer interest in these consented sites,

that changes to layouts and housing numbers will be brought forward. These

changes will, in the overall context of housing numbers within Barrow and the

wider Borough, be inconsequential. Indeed, such proposals are likely to

involve both increases and decreases in the yield from individual sites. That

is exactly what has occurred with the current proposal and, subject to

appropriate assessment of the detailed implications of the scheme change,

there can be no objection to the principle of the proposed development and

the numbers proposed. That said, this Planning Statement has carried out a

full assessment of all material planning considerations.

10.2 The assessment has demonstrated that the application proposal would:

involve the development of a brownfield site which already has the

benefit of outline planning permission, thus establishing the principle of

the development’s acceptability;

constitute appropriate development of a site in a sustainable location

for housing development;

constitute appropriate development of a site well-related to the built up

area of Barrow and which would consolidate the existing pattern of

development within the settlement;

be acceptable, in principle, as it accords with the intent of the

Development Plan, in particular Local Plan Policy G4, although many



of the provisions of the Local Plan (including settlement boundaries)

are out of date;

be acceptable, in principle, as it accords with the provisions of the

submitted (2012) and the proposed main modifications (2013) of the

emerging Core Strategy Policy DS1;

whilst in tension with the provisions of the proposed main modifications

(2014) of the emerging Core Strategy Policy DS1, no significant weight

can be accorded to the policy as it has been the subject of

considerable objection and has yet to be subject to independent

examination. As such, this aspect of the Plan cannot be regarded as

‘well advanced’ and there can be no certainty that the policy would be

found sound or subsequently adopted. In any event, due regard has to

be given to the existence of an extant planning permission for the

site’s residential development;

contribute positively to the supply of housing land in the Borough, for

which there is an evident under-supply. It has been shown that the

Council cannot evidence a five years’ supply of housing land. As such,

this is an added and significant factor that weighs in favour of the

proposal, given the NPPF’s commitment to boosting the supply of

housing;

constitute a sustainable form of development having regard to the

provisions of the NPPF. In particular, the site is well-located for public

transport services providing links to a wide range of services and

facilities;

result in economic, social and environmental benefits as promoted by

the NPPF

result in a form of development that would be neighbourly and not

have any undue impact upon the character of the locality;

involve development of a site which has no biodiversity value, whilst all

trees and hedgerows would be retained and supplemented; and

utilise an access of appropriate dimensions with visibility to meet the

Highway Authority’s requirements, resulting in safe highway

conditions.



10.3 Given the background of an out-of-date Local Plan and an only partially

examined Core Strategy, and having regard to the NPPF paragraph 14, the

presumption is that planning permission should be granted for sustainable

development (which the proposal has been evidenced to be) unless there are

any adverse impacts of doing so that would significantly and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits of the development, when assessed against the

policies of the NPPF taken as a whole. In this case, a number of benefits

have been identified as described at sections 9.20 to 9.22. No adverse

impacts have been identified. With regards to the emerging Core Strategy,

the proposal is of such limited scale it could not in any way prejudice the

eventual development strategy.

10.4 For the reasons set out in this Statement it is submitted that the application

proposal constitutes sustainable development and there are no adverse

impacts which would outweigh the benefits of the development. For these

reasons, the Council is respectfully invited to grant planning permission for

this development proposal.



APPENDICES

Appendix A:

Ribble Valley Borough Council pre-application advice for development at the

application site, dated 29 July 2014.

janet dixon - ribble valley · janet dixon town planners ltd page 3 2. the proposal 2.1 the...

Documents