(public pack)adjourned meeting of thursday, 10 december

Meeting contact Charlotte Lynch or email [email protected]

PLANNING COMMITTEE THURSDAY, 17TH DECEMBER, 2020, 6.00 PM ACCESSIBLE VIA MS TEAMS AND YOUTUBE

SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA I am now able to enclose, for consideration at the above meeting of the Planning Committee, the following information:

1 Welcome and Introduction

2 Apologies for Absence

3 Declarations of Interest

Members are requested to indicate at this stage in the proceedings any items on the agenda in which they intend to declare an interest. Members are reminded that if the interest is a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (as defined in the Members’ Code of Conduct) they must leave the room for the whole of that item. If the interest is not a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, but is such that a member of the public could reasonably regard it as being so significant that it is likely that it would prejudice their judgment of the public interest (as explained in the Code of Conduct) then they may make representations, but then must leave the meeting for the remainder of the item.

4 Minutes of meeting Thursday, 12 November 2020 of Planning Committee

(Pages 31 - 34)

To be approved as a correct record.

6 Appeal Decisions

An update will be provided at the meeting if applicable.

7 07/2020/00505/OUT - Land to the rear of Oakdene, Chain House Lane, Whitestake

(Pages 35 - 150)

Report of the Director of Planning and Property attached.

8 07/2020/00788/FUL - 5 East Square, Longton (Pages 151 - 162)


9 07/2020/00876/HOH - 61 Church Road, Leyland (Pages 163 - 168)

Public Document Pack


10 07/2020/00850/COU - 78 Hough Lane, Leyland (Pages 169 - 176)


11 07/2020/00853/COU - Penwortham Arts Centre, The Venue, Liverpool Road, Penwortham

(Pages 177 - 184)


Gary Hall INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE Electronic agendas sent to Members of the Planning Committee

Planning Committee Thursday 12 November 2020

MINUTES OF

PLANNING COMMITTEE

MEETING DATE

Thursday, 12 November 2020

MEMBERS PRESENT: Councillors Caleb Tomlinson (Chair), Malcolm Donoghue (Vice-Chair), Will Adams, James Flannery, Mary Green, Harry Hancock, Jon Hesketh, Mick Higgins, Christine Melia, Caroline Moon, Phil Smith, Gareth Watson and Barrie Yates

OFFICERS: Jonathan Noad (Director of Planning and Property), Steven Brown (Head of Development Management), Dave Whelan (Shared Services Lead - Legal & Deputy Monitoring Officer), Catherine Lewis (Development Planning Team Leader), Debbie Roberts (Planning Officer) and Charlotte Lynch (Democratic and Member Services Officer)

CABINET MEMBERS: Councillor Bill Evans (Cabinet Member (Planning, Regeneration and City Deal)) and Councillor Michael Titherington (Deputy Leader of the Council, Cabinet Member (Health, Wellbeing and Leisure) and Deputy Leader of the Labour Group)

OTHER MEMBERS AND OFFICERS:

Councillor Colin Sharples and Councillor Michael Titherington (Deputy Leader of the Council, Cabinet Member (Health, Wellbeing and Leisure) and Deputy Leader of the Labour Group)

64 Welcome and Introduction

The Chair, Councillor Caleb Tomlinson, welcomed the committee and members of the public and explained that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the meeting was being held over Microsoft Teams and livestreamed to YouTube.

65 Apologies for Absence None.

66 Declarations of Interest Councillor Mick Higgins declared a prejudicial interest in item 6 – 175-177 Station Road, Bamber Bridge – and would leave the meeting for the duration of the item.

67 Minutes of meeting Thursday, 15 October 2020 of Planning Committee RESOLVED: (For: 12 Abstain: 1) That the minutes of the previous meeting, held on Thursday, 15 October 2020, be signed as a correct record by the Chair.

1

Agenda Item 4

2


68 Appeal Decisions There were none to report.

69 07/2020/00761/FUL - 175-177 Station Road, Bamber Bridge

Councillor Mick Higgins left the meeting for the duration of this item. Speakers: None Address: 175-177 Station Road Bamber Bridge Preston Applicant: Mr Andrew Bland Agent: Bramley – Pate and Partners 184 Station Road Bamber Bridge Preston Development: Proposed change of use from A1/A2 to American diner restaurant and drinking establishment with live music (A4). The Head of Development Management advised at the meeting that, in the interests of clarity, condition 5 in the report should be reworded as follows:

The use hereby approved shall not be open to the public outside the hours of: Monday – Thursday 9.00am – 12.00 midnight Friday 9.00am – 1am (Saturday) Saturday 9.00am – 1am (Sunday) Sunday and Bank Holidays 9.00am – 11pm

REASON: In the interests of the amenity of the nearby residents in accordance with Policy 17 of the Central Core Strategy

RESOLVED: (For: 12 Abstain: 1) That

1. members are minded to approve the application subject to the rewording of condition 5; and

2. the decision be delegated to the Director of Planning and Property in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of Planning Committee upon expiration of the publicity period.

70 07/2020/00549 - Land adjacent to The Oaks, Potter Lane, Salmesbury

Speakers: 1 supporter Address: Land adjacent to The Oaks

Page 32

3


Potter Lane Samlesbury Applicant: Mr and Mrs Darbyshire Agent: The Artistry 16 Winckley Square Preston PR1 3JJ Development: Erection of two storey plus basement level family eco-home with associated landscaping and sublevel car parking and proposed new access. RESOLVED: (Unanimously) That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1. The application site is allocated as Green Belt in Policy G1 of the South Ribble Local Plan. The proposed development with a separate access and frontage from Potter Lane would be contrary to the Green Belt designation and is not classed as limited infilling in villages. Therefore, the proposal would not meet the exception (e) of paragraph 145 of the NPPF or exception (e) of Policy G1 of the South Ribble Local Plan

2. The proposal would introduce residential development into an open, green

area which would be contrary to Policy 134 of the NPPF which seeks to safeguard the countryside in the Green Belt from encroachment.

71 07/2020/00705/FUL - Oakland Farm, Hollins Lane, Leyland

Speakers: None Address: Oakland Farm Hollins Lane Leyland PR26 8LJ Applicant: Mr Lewis Buller Agent: Mr Andrew Cowley 1086 Estates Ltd. 50 Merlin Grove Leyland Development: Erection of 4 no. dwellings. RESOLVED: (Unanimously) That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1. It has not been demonstrated that a development of 4 dwellings would not be an incongruous addition to the rural location which fails to make a positive contribution to the quality of the environment. In relation to this the proposal

Page 33

4


has the potential to conflict with and not respect or enhance the established character and appearance of the area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy G17(a) of the South Ribble Local Plan

2. The application site is considered to be in an unsustainable location due to the distance from the nearest shops and services, the absence of nearby public transport and the lack of connection to nearby settlements. Proposed development therefore does not represent sustainable development and does not comply with Chapter 9 (Promoting sustainable transport)- particularly paragraphs 102c, 103, 105 and 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Central Lancashire Core Strategy Policy 3 (Travel) and Local Plan Chapter F (Catering for sustainable travel)

3. The proposal would have a greater impact upon the openness of the Green Belt than the current use and is contrary to Policy G1 of the South Ribble Local Plan and Paragraph 145 of the NPPF.

72 07/2020/00682/VAR - Land at Oldfield and Long Meadow, Much Hoole

Speakers: None Address: Land at Oldfield and Long Meadow Oldfield Much Hoole Applicant: Applethwaite Ltd. Agent: Mr David Devine Development: Variation of condition 2 (Approved plans) pursuant to planning permission 07/2020/00277/FUL for erection of 14 no. bungalow for over-55 age group to allow for removal and replacement of a tree (T9) adjacent to the Knoll Lane boundary to further assist the formation of the approved construction access from Knoll Lane. RESOLVED: (Unanimously) That the application be approved. Chair Date

Page 34

1

Application Number 07/2020/00505/OUT

Address Land Rear of Oakdene

Chain House Lane

Whitestake

Lancashire

Applicant Wainhomes (North West) Ltd

Agent Mr Stephen Harris

Units 2-4 South Park Court

Hobson Street

Macclesfield SK11 8BS

Development Outline Permission for up to 100 dwellings with access

and associated works

Officer Recommendation Refusal

Officer Name Mrs Catherine Lewis

Validation Date 26.06.2020

Target Determination Date 25.09.2020

Extension of Time 05.11.2020

Page 35

Agenda Item 7

2

Summary

1.1 The application seeks outline planning permission, with all matters reserved save for

access and associated works, for the construction of 100 dwellings (30% of which would be

affordable housing) on a site measuring 3.6 hectares. The site comprises agricultural land

and is located to the south of Chain House Lane, Whitestake.

1.2 The current planning application is a resubmission of application ref: 07/2018/9316/OUT which was refused by the Planning Committee on 27 June 219. The decision was the subject of an appeal via a Public Inquiry. The Appeal was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate on 13 December 2019.

1.3 The appeal decision was the subject of a legal challenge by the developer and the Secretary of State concluded that their appeal decision was legally flawed in respect of a single ground and should be quashed. However, this Council decided to defend the Appeal Decision and a Court hearing took place on 17 June 2020. The High Court Judgment published on 21 August 2020 ruled that the appeal decision should be quashed on ground 5 (the ground on which the SoS consented to judgment). Whilst ground 1 was also conceded, the Judge held that ground 3 (which failed) also had to succeed for the decision to be quashed on ground 1. This means that the Public Inquiry would need to be rerun for a formal decision on the acceptability of the planning application ref: 07/2018/9316/OUT to be determined. The Planning Inspectorate has confirmed that the Public Inquiry will be held on 16 March 2021.

1.4 South Ribble is one of three authorities forming the Central Lancashire Core Strategy.

The housing requirement in Core Strategy Policy 4 Housing Delivery, which required South

Ribble to provide for a minimum of 417 dwellings per annum, is considered to be out of

date. The Standard Method figure of 191 dwellings per annum is derived from the

NPPF/NPPG and should form the basis of the housing requirement against which to

determine the five-year housing land supply at the current time.

1.5 The application site is designated by Policy G3 as Safeguarded Land in the South Ribble

Local Plan 2015 and is specifically referenced as S3 South of Coote Lane, Chain House

Lane, Farington. In the light of the Planning Court’s judgment, Policy G3 is also considered

to be technically out of date but still of considerable weight. Under the NPPF, the tilted

balance is engaged. This requires a balancing exercise to be undertaken as to the merits

of the application as planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of

doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

1.6 The developer attaches great weight to the following benefits: the scale of the

development would accord with the settlement hierarchy as set out in the Development Plan;

the delivery of open market housing and affordable housing- which would assist in boosting

the supply of housing in South Ribble; there is no conflict to Policy G3 as this policy

safeguards land for future development; the development is in an accessible location and

funds would be made available for a bus service for 5 years and there would be a range of

social and economic benefits including in terms of Council Tax, CIL and construction jobs.

1.7 The Council conclude that, whilst Policy G3 may be technically out of date (for the

reasons set out by the Planning Court), significant weight should be attached to the policy

in the application of the tilted balance and substantial weight should be attached to the policy

conflict with Policy G3. The Council can demonstrate a significant housing land supply

position, under the application of the standard method, which means that safeguarded land

is not required to be developed now (and/or in advance of any statutory review of the Plan).

The site forms part of a parcel of land allocated as Safeguarded by Policy G3 of the SRBC

and on that basis the principle of the development is not supported as the land is

Page 36

3

safeguarded until the end of the plan period 2026 or the plan is formally reviewed.

Furthermore, the piecemeal development of part of the site would not constitute sustainable

development and would cause harm to the possible comprehensive development of the

area, as found by the previous Inspector. Limited weight is given to a bus service that may

only run for 5 years, and limited weight is attached to the benefits associated with the Council

Tax, CIL and employment opportunities as these would arise on any site that were to be

developed. Section 9.28- 9.40 in the report provides further clarity of these issues.

1.8 Provision of on-site open space and contributions to off-site play space are to mitigate

the impacts of the development. Development in an accessible location is a requirement for

all development schemes, and this is not a highly accessible location. These are

consideration which are neutral in the planning balance.

1.9 Whilst concerns have been raised by third parties about the ability of the local highway

network to cope with the additional traffic, together with concerns about ecology, drainage,

noise and air pollution, there are no formal objections raised from any of the statutory

consultees.

1.10 Therefore, having undertaken a planning tilted balance exercise, the adverse impact

of the development on a site distant from the existing urban area, in a piecemeal way, in

conflict with Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan, would significantly and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits of allowing 100 dwellings (30% affordable) and other benefits. The

proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the development plan. Further, material

considerations would further support the refusal of consent because the proposal is not

sustainable development, for the purposes of the NPPF, having applied the tilted balance.

1.11 The application is therefore recommended for refusal and it is intended that this will

also be the position of the Council at the reconvened Public Inquiry. This Report should be

read together with the Statement of Case, which is appended to this Report.

2. Site and Surrounding Area

2.1. The application site is located approximately 1.3km to the west of Lostock Hall and 5km

south of the centre of Preston. Measuring 3.6 hectares, the site is bordered by Chain House

Lane to the north, Church Lane to the east and agricultural land to the south and west.

2.2 The site comprises of three fields that are separated by hedges and ditches and the fields

are currently used for grazing. A railway embankment is adjacent to the southern boundary.

The south, west and eastern boundaries of the property known as Oak Dene abut the

application site and the property known as The Bungalow abuts part of the west boundary.

2.3 Access to the site is taken from Chain House Lane which is subject to a 40mph speed

limit. To the north of Chain House Lane is safeguarded land with Pickering’s Farm located

further north. The site is generally level with a slight fall in a southerly direction.

2.4 The application site is specifically referenced as S3 South of Coote Lane, Chain House

Lane Farington as part of the land designated as subject to Policy G3 Safeguarded Land of

the South Ribble Local Plan.

2.5 Comprising open fields with no built development on either side, the site is not an infill plot

or a naturally logical housing site in the manner one might expect of a comprehensive

development.

Page 37

4

3. Planning History

3.1 The current planning application is a resubmission of application ref: 07/2018/9316/OUT which was refused by the Planning Committee on 27 June 2019. The decision was the subject of an appeal via a Public Inquiry and which was dismissed by the Planning inspectorate on 13 December 2019. 3.2 The appeal decision was the subject of a legal challenge by the developer. The Secretary of State concluded that their appeal decision was legally flawed (on ground 5 alone) and should be quashed. However, this Council decided to defend the Appeal Decision Notice and a Court hearing took place on 17 June 2020. The Planning Court Judgment published 21 August 2020 ruled that the appeal decision be quashed on ground 5. Ground 1 also succeeded but (as the Judge held) it also required ground 3 to succeed to justify the quashing of the decision. Grounds 2-4 all failed and the decision was not therefore quashed on the basis of ground 1. 3.3 This means that the Public Inquiry would need to be rerun for a formal decision on the acceptability of the planning application ref: 07/2018/9316/OUT to be determined. The Council has been advised that the reconvened date for the Public Inquiry is 16 March 2021. A previously quashed decision can be capable of being a material consideration, depending on the basis on which the decision was quashed. The LPA may, therefore, take into account parts of the decision unaffected by the quashing. The weight to be attached to them is a matter for the Committee as decision maker (see Davison v Elmbridge BC [2019] EWHC 1409 (Admin)).

4. Proposal

4.1 The application seeks outline planning permission, with all matters reserved save for

access, for the erection of up to 100 dwellings (30% of which would be affordable housing).

4.2 As the matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are not being applied for

within this application, the submitted layout plan is only for indicative purposes at this stage. It

must, nonetheless, show in principle a development which is acceptable, the detail of which

can then be considered at the reserved matters stage.

4.3 Access to the site is proposed off Chain House Lane which would be located approximately

160 metres from the main junction known as A582 Penwortham Way /Chain House Lane. The

scheme details include a reduction from 40mph to 30mph from this junction through to the

existing 30mph reduction on Coote Lane.

4.4 Vehicular access to the application site would be provided through the introduction of a

priority-controlled T- junction onto Chain House Lane.

5. Summary of Supporting Documents

5.1. The application is supported by a number of drawings and the following documents which

is listed below:

• Location Plan

• Illustrative Masterplan Layout Plan ref 1638/WHD/CHL/IMOL Rev B /by DGL Associates

• Ecology Survey and Assessment (October 20180 by ERAP

• Access Arrangements Plan ref: SCP/18355/FO2 Rev B

• Tree Survey Report dated 2018 by Trevor Bridge

• Phase 1 Geo Environmental Desk Study dated August 2018 REFA (Ref:18119)

Page 38

5

• Transport Impact Assessment Doc. No. SCP/18355/TA/01 (April2019)

• Planning, Design and Access Statement Ref 18-294 dated June 2020

• Planning Statement Addendum and Appendices dated September 2020

• Advice Note from Vince Fraser QC dated 1 September 2020

• Travel Plan Ref: CT/18355/TP/00 dated April 2019

• Air Quality Assessment 443536/AQ/01/ (05)

• Flood Risk report dated April 2019 Iron Farrar

6.0 Summary of Neighbour Consultation

6.1 In July 2020, properties were consulted and several site notices were posted together with

an advert in the newspaper.

6.2 A total of 90 letters of representation have been received which raised the following issues

summarised below:

Policy

• Concern has been raised that the application has been resubmitted when the appeal decision notice is the subject of a Planning Court challenge.

• Green Spaces are more important due to the impact of lockdown during COVID 19.

• The development would be contrary to the designation of Safeguarded land in the local plan.

• There is a need to protect the Green Belt and no further development should take place.

• Too much development taking place with Pickering’s Farm already included for development.

• The Council can demonstrate enough housing and as it is meeting the Government’s targets there is no need for this application.

Character

• The proposed dwellings are not in keeping with the area. The development would destroy

a pleasant walking area.

• Cannot keep expanding Leyland and Penwortham outwards in to the Green Belt area as

this would be a social and environmental disaster.

• Green space is being eaten away by speculative development.

• Currently very little light pollution and wildlife would be affected by the urbanisation of the

area.

• The proposed development would introduce a disconnect pocket of housing.

• The housing density is not in keeping with the local vernacular of low density detached

houses/bungalows/dormer bungalows.

Highway Issues

• Increase in cars and congestion on an already busy road.

• Chain House Lane and Church Lane are used as a rat run and the roads are often subject

to congestion if there are accidents on the wider high way network

• Lack of footpaths to make the site sustainable.

• Impact on Lostock Hall as vehicles try to exit Coote Lane at the Brownedge Junction.

• There is a weight restriction on railway bridge on Coote Lane and Church Lane.

• No public transport in the area.

Page 39

6

• Impact of further queuing at the junction with Penwortham Way. The proposed entry/exit

would be located in a dangerous place.

• Church Lane is busy with a 20/30mph zone but is not policed, would this lead to traffic

lights at key junctions?

Drainage

• Surface water problems will be made worse by the proposed increase across the site.

• The outline application details provide for the surface water to be drained to Mill Brook.

Concern is raised about the need to protect properties downstream of the proposed

development.

• The site would be raised by 1.5 metres which would be out of keeping with the surrounding

area

• The site is Moss land which is difficult to drain

Trees and Wildlife

• Ecology at risk as the wildlife depend upon this environment which will be lost.

• Owls and bats regularly seen hunting in the fields.

• Destruction of Green Space.

Residential amenity

• Loss of privacy to the residents of Oakdene

• The proposed development would be directly overlooking and overbearing in terms of

residential amenity.

• Potential for loss of light and privacy to existing residents.

Other Issues

• Pollution and noise due to the increase in the development.

• The local Faith school is at full capacity.

• South Ribble recently won the accolade of being the Best place to Live in the UK and the

Government are making mistakes in requiring more housing. The impact of more housing

on green fields will have a negative impact on this accolade.

• Loss of view and devalue of property.

• Need to reuse existing properties within Preston and Leyland before building on green

fields.

• No local shops at Whitestake.

• No schools or health provision within the area.

• Should develop the failed IKEA site for housing.

• Although electric vehicle recharge points are to be provided and do not emit exhaust fumes

they do omit tiny particles from brake and tyre dust adding to Air quality issues.

• What will happen to the local dairy business that currently use the land to graze cows. Loss

of precious farmland will continue if more housing is constructed.

6.3 A further letter has been received which provides a link to a web page which advises that

when the application Ref: 07/2020/00505/OUT was put forward on the 26.06.20 a new

petition was started. As of 26.11.2020 this shows some 1,238 signatories of people

objecting to the proposed plan and the letter details a number of concerns which are

summarised below:

• The Transport Assessment fails to demonstrate in detail the existing situation.

Page 40

7

• Concern is raised about whether the affordable units can really be affordable in this current

economic crisis.

• There are a few variations in the documentation associated with the current application

than previously submitted for example the house types are no listed, there is no detail about

waste storage or about habitat and wildlife.

• Concern is raised that as more development has come forward since the previous

application the roads are more congested. Some of the information in the TA is incorrect

including the Traffic Survey which is now considered out of date and there is concern that

the assessment is not a reflection of the vehicle movements for the area.

• Concern about more accidents that have happened but which people do not report to the

police and therefore they are not recorded.

• The site is not sustainable and concern is raised about information contained in the

Sustainable Transport Appraisal.

• Concern is raised about the ability of the site to provide for enough electric car points if

some house types do not have driveways.

• There has been a change in who is operating the bus service for LCC and there is no

service in the area to take you to the main nearest shopping area of Lostock Hall or the

Railway station in Lostock Hall.

• The PROW does not provide the level of connectivity as set out in the Transport

Assessment. They are blocked and are not suitable for all modes of transport.

• The proposed development shows imaginary access to land not in the ownership of the

applicant.

• Concern the area is becoming urbanised and the site has not been put forward as an

allocated site

• The Council can demonstrate enough housing.

• What happens if there is a power cut for the provision of the electric cars.

• Concern is raised about flooding and drainage across the site with more photos included.

• Concern is raised about Air Pollution and the increased level of development.

6.4 Nigel Evans MP for Ribble Valley has written dated 30 July 2020 to register his objection to the application. The following summarised concerns are raised:

• He finds it highly questionable that another application has been submitted before the results of the judicial review for the previous application is made known.

• Since the new application has been made more than a 1,000 people have signed a petition against the proposed development demonstrating the strength of feeling about the development in the local community.

• He hopes the Council feel able to refuse the application as has previously been done given the lack of change between the old and the new applications.

6.5 Farington Parish Council- Object to the proposal on the following grounds:

• The Parish Council unanimously agreed to object to this application. They are disappointed

that this is almost identical to 07/2018/9316/OUT which was previously refused.

• The proposal would be out of keeping with the character of the area, and not suitable for a

semirural/rural area.

• Concern is raised about the proposed entry/exit opposite the proposed Pickering’s Farm

site.

• Lack of suitable infrastructure in the area.

• Traffic congestion on Chain House Lane and Coote Lane at peak times of the day

• Air quality is poor and the area is a “moss” area is prone to flooding.

Page 41

8

• Concern is raised about the lack of suitable infrastructure and a lack of services for the

local community.

7. Summary of Statutory Consultations

7.1 Comments received from Statutory Consultees are summarised below:

7.2 Lancashire County Council Highways (LHA) Raise No objections subject to conditions

controlling the site access, Construction Management Plan and a legal agreement to secure

off-site contributions.

7.3 Lancashire County Council Education has advised that an education contribution is not

required at this stage in regard to this development.

7.4 Ecology (GMEU) – Recommends that the Ecology report is reviewed and updated as

necessary. The applicant has undertaken further surveys and the report is due to be submitted

as soon as possible. A further verbal update will be provided at the Planning Committee

meeting.

7.5 South Ribble Borough Council Arboriculturist – No objections to the development.

Conditions controlling trees to be protected, and a method statement if development enters

into the root protection area. A walk over survey as recommended in the tree report is required

prior to commencement A landscape plan to be submitted detailing new tree planting, numbers

and species size, which should include broadleaf deciduous upright trees.

7.6 United Utilities - Have raised no objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of

conditions relating to foul and surface water drainage details. The water mains would need

extending and the applicant may be required to pay a contribution. A foul water sewer, a critical

surface water sewer, and a water main crosses the site which may have implications for any

detailed layout.

7.7 Lead Local Flood Authority (Lancashire County Council) – Have no objections to the

scheme subject to the inclusion of conditions to manage the risk of flooding.

7.8 Environment Agency have no comment to make upon the application.

7.9 South Ribble Borough Council Environmental Health (EHO)- The EHO has suggested

a number of conditions no burning, dust management plan, wheel wash facilitates, control of

the storage compound and site cabins, hours of construction, piling activities, contamination

report, control of importation of material, cycle storage to be provided, and electric vehicle

recharging points.

7.10 South Ribble Borough Council Strategic Housing –The application details provide for

up to 100 dwellings with 30% affordable housing to be provided on site meeting the targets set

out in Policy 7 of the CLJCS. The borough has a need for smaller affordable units including

one and two bedroomed flats/apartments and two- and three-bedroom houses. Population

projections highlight an ageing population for South Ribble: provision to meet the needs of this

group would be welcomed as housing for older people has been identified as a priority.

7.11 NHS Chorley and South Ribble Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) – No

comments received.

7.12 Network Rail – Raise concerns about the impact of the proposed development upon the

railway crossing known as Lodge Lane Level Crossing. Any proposed development near to the

Page 42

9

crossing must be accompanied by an assessment to appraise the impact on the crossing and

include any necessary mitigation as part of the planning process.

7.13 Crime Prevention Officer (Lancashire Constabulary) – Has no objections to the scheme

but makes recommendations that the development is designed and constructed to Secure by

Design “Homes 2016” in relation to security and minimising the risk of crime. These comments

have been forwarded to the applicant.

7.14 Fire and Rescue Have provided advice about the access arrangements required within

any site layout in case of an emergency.

8. Policy Background

8.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - sets out the Government’s economic,

environmental and social planning policies for England. At the heart of the planning system is

a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

• Chapter 2: Achieving Sustainable Development states that ‘at the heart of the framework

is a presumption in favour of sustainable development’. The NPPF supports sustainable

economic growth to deliver, amongst other things, homes. Paragraph 11 states “Plans and

decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development”.

• For decision taking this means where the policies which are most important for determining

the application are out of date granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts

of doing so would significantly outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies

in the Framework taken as a whole (known as the tilted balance).

• Annex 1 paragraph 213 is also applicable existing policies should not be considered out

of date simply adopted prior to the publication of the Framework. Due weight should be

given according to their degrees of consistency with the Framework

• Chapter 4: Decision Making states that Local Authorities should approach decisions on

proposed development in a positive and creative way and work proactively with applicants

to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental

conditions in the area.

• Chapter 5: Delivering a sufficient supply of homes – a sufficient amount and variety of land

to come forward where it is needed. Land with permission should be developed without

unnecessary delay- Paragraph 59. Policies should be informed by local housing need

assessment conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance -

Paragraph 60. Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a specific

supply of deliverable sites against the local housing need where strategic policies are more

than 5 years old. Footnote 73 sets out where local housing need is used as a base for

assessing the deliverability of specific sites this should be calculated using the standard

method set out in national planning guidance.

• Where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, decisions

should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership

(as part of the overall affordable housing contribution from the site). Within this context,

the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different community groups - including

older people, must be taken into account. Chapter 5 also details its requirements for

affordable housing provision.

Page 43

10

• Chapter 6 Building a strong, competitive economy: Planning policies and decisions should

create conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt- paragraph 80.

Comprising open fields with no built development on either side the site is not an infill plot

or a naturally logical housing site associated with comprehensive development.

• Chapter 8 Promoting healthy and safe communities: Planning decisions should aim to

create healthy, inclusive and safe places to promote social interaction, are safe and

accessible. The need to plan positively for the provision of shared spaces and community

facilities to enhance residential environments is encouraged.

• Chapter 9 Promoting sustainable transport: The Planning system should actively manage

patterns of growth to support the objectives of sustainable transport. Paragraph 108 sets

out criteria to consider the impact of development proposals. Criterion (b) requires a safe

and suitable access to the site to be achieved for all users. With Paragraph 110 requiring

development to create places that are safe, secure and attractive.

• Planning decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively

within existing businesses and community facilities (paragraph 182).

• Chapter 11: Making effective use of land: Decisions should promote effective use of land

and paragraph 118 criterion (c) states substantial weight should be given to the value of

using brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs.

• Chapter 12: Achieving well-designed places - Paragraph 124 “Good design is a key aspect

of sustainable development”. Developments should add to the overall quality of the area,

establish a strong sense of place, optimise the potential of the site, by creating and

sustaining an appropriate mix of uses, and create safe, accessible environments which

are visually attractive. Para 127 sets out a number of criteria which developments should

meet to deliver well-designed sustainable development. Permission should be refused for

development of poor design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving

the character and quality of an area. Read together, it is not considered that the NPPF

supports the development of sites in isolation of their surroundings.

• Protecting Green Belt Land: Paragraph 139 (c) and (d) states the importance of

Safeguarded land in order to meet longer term development needs stretching well beyond

the plan period and makes clear that planning permission for permanent development of

safeguarded land shall only be granted following an update to a plan which proposed the

development.

• Chapter 14: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change -

Paragraph 148 makes clear that the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate

should be supported through the planning system. When determining planning

applications local planning authorises should ensure that flood risk is not increased

elsewhere.

• Chapter 15: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Planning decisions

should contribute to and enhance the natural environment (Paragraph 170). There is a

need to minimise impacts on and provide net gains for biodiversity. Ground conditions and

contamination issues need to be fully assessed but where a site is affected by

contamination or land stability issues responsibility for securing a safe development rests

with the developer/ and or landowner (Para 179). New development needs to be

appropriate to its location and have regard to potential pollution on health (Para 180).

Page 44

11

8.2 Central Lancashire Core Strategy (adopted July 2012)

• Policy 1: Locating Growth focuses growth and investment on brownfield sites in the main

urban areas, and the Strategic Sites, whilst protecting the character of suburban and

rural areas.

• Policy 3: Travel seeks to reduce the need to travel, manage car use, promote more

sustainable modes of transport and improve the road network.

• Policy 4: Housing Delivery provides for and manages the delivery of new housing. For

South Ribble this sets a housing requirement which amounts to 417 dwellings per

annum. However, this figure is based on evidence which is significantly out of date and

derived from the RSS, which has been revoked and did not provide an objectively

assessed need for housing. The current methodology for boosting significantly the supply

of housing in the NPPF (2019) is significantly different.

• Policy 5: Housing Density seeks to secure housing densities which are in keeping with

the local areas and which will have no detrimental impact on the amenity, character,

appearance, distinctiveness and environmental quality of an area.

• Policy 6: Housing Quality seeks to improve the quality of housing by facilitating the

greater provision of accessible housing and neighbourhoods and use of higher standards

of construction.

• Policy 7: Affordable Housing seeks to ensure sufficient provision of affordable and

special housing to meet needs.

• Policy 9 Employment seeks to ensure economic growth and employment is delivered

through a number of measures.

• Policy 17: Design of New Buildings expects the design of new buildings to take account

of the character and appearance of the local area; be sympathetic to surrounding land

uses and occupiers; ensure that the amenities of occupiers of the new development will

not be adversely affected by neighbouring uses and vice versa; minimise opportunity for

crime; provide landscaping as an integral part of the development, protecting existing

landscape features and natural assets, habitat creation, provide open space and

enhance the public realm; be adaptable to climate change and adopt the principles of

sustainable construction including sustainable drainage systems and ensure that

contaminated land is addressed through appropriate remediation and mitigation

measures.

• Policy 22: Biodiversity & Geodiversity aims to conserve, protect and seek opportunities

to enhance and manage the biological and geological assets of the area

• Policy 26: Crime and Community Safety plans for reduced levels of crime and improved

community safety, including the inclusion of Secured by Design principles in new

developments.

• Policy 27: Sustainable Resources and New Developments seeks to ensure sustainable

resources are incorporated into new development.

Page 45

12

• Policy 29: Water Management aims to improve water quality, water management and

reduce the risk of flooding through a number of measures, including encouraging the

adoption of Sustainable Drainage Systems.

• Policy 30: Air Quality aims to improve air quality through the delivery of Green

Infrastructure initiatives and through taking account of air quality when prioritising

measures to reduce road traffic congestion.

• Policy 31: Agricultural Land seeks to preserve the best and most versatile agricultural

land.

• Policy MP states that Councils will take a proactive approach which reflects the NPPF’s

presumption in favour of sustainable development, and that applications which accord

with the policies of the Local Plan will be approved without delay unless material

considerations indicate otherwise.

8.3 South Ribble Local Plan (adopted July 2015)

• Policy A1: Developer Contributions expects new development to contribute to mitigating

its impact on infrastructure, services and the environment and to contribute to the

requirements of the community.

• Policy G3 Safeguarded Land for Future Development: Site S3 South of Coote Lane is

identified within the Policy as one of those locations that should for the most part remain

undisturbed during the plan period or until the plan is reviewed. Development should not

be granted which would prejudice potential longer term, comprehensive development of

the land.

• Policy G8 Green Infrastructure (provision in new developments): Developments should

provide appropriate Green Infrastructure and landscaping including green corridors to

join up the Borough’s green and built up areas.

• Policy F1: Parking Standards requires all development proposals to provide car parking

and servicing space in accordance with parking standards adopted by the Council.

• Policy G10: Green Infrastructure states that all new residential development resulting in

a net gain of 5 dwellings must provide sufficient green infrastructure to meet the

recreational needs of the development, in accordance with specific but flexible

standards.

• Policy G13: Trees, Woodlands and Development states that development will not be

permitted where it affects protected trees and woodland unless justified. Where loss of

the same is unavoidable, this policy accepts suitable mitigation.

• Policy G16: Biodiversity and Nature Conservation protects, conserves and enhances the

natural environment at a level commensurate with the site’s importance and the

contribution it makes to wider ecological networks.

• Policy G17: Design Criteria for New Development considers design in general terms, and

impact of the development upon highway safety, the extended locale and the natural

environment.

Page 46

13

• Chapter J: Tackling Climate Change looks to reduce energy use and carbon dioxide

emissions in new developments; encouraging the use of renewable energy sources.

8.4 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)

• Central Lancashire Design Guide SPD provides an overview of the design principles that

are employed throughout the three Central Lancashire authorities. It draws on key policy and

good-practice guidance in order to raise the level and quality of design of new buildings in the

built environment.

• Central Lancashire Affordable Housing SPD gives guidance on a range of approaches

to deliver affordable housing which meets local needs.

• Central Lancashire Open Space and Playing Pitch SPD advises on provision and

retention of open space in existing and proposed developments.

• Central Lancashire Employment Skills SPD – this document was adopted in September

2017 and as such carries considerable weight in planning decisions. The SPD has been driven

by the Council’s aspiration to see additional benefits (social value) incorporated into

development opportunities; ‘social value’ in this case being a contribution towards employment

and skills enhancement in the Borough.

• Central Lancashire Biodiversity and Nature Conservation SPD provides guidance for

developers in relation to improving biodiversity of the Central Lancashire area. Its main goal

is to ensure that there is no net loss of nature conservation assets and where appropriate there

is an improvement in them. It also explains the Council’s approach towards conserving,

protecting and enhancing biodiversity and ecological networks.

• South Ribble Residential Design SPD discusses design in very specific terms. Whilst

more attuned to residential extensions this document is also used to assist with the design of

new build residential development and with regards to separation with properties beyond the

site bounds.

9. Assessment of the Scheme

BACKGROUND

9.1 The current planning application is a resubmission of application ref: 07/2018/9316/OUT

which was refused on 27 June 219. The decision was the subject of an appeal via a Public

Inquiry and which was dismissed by the Planning inspectorate on 13 December 2019. The

appeal decision was the subject of a legal challenge by the developer. The Secretary of State

agreed that the appeal decision should be quashed on ground 5 (alone) as it was legally

flawed. However, this Council decided to defend the decision made by the Secretary of State

and a Court hearing took place on 17 June 2020. The Planning Court Judgment published on

21 August 2020 ruled that the appeal decision should be quashed. This means that the Public

Inquiry would need to be reconvened to reconsider a formal decision on the acceptability of

the planning application ref: 07/2018/9316/OUT.

9.2 An appeal decision has recently been issued by the Planning Inspectorate dated August

2020 for a residential development on Safeguarded land at Pear Tree Lane, Euxton, Chorley.

The applicant has advised that both these decisions have fundamental implications for the

current application. The Pear Tree Lane decision is considered to be a material consideration

Page 47

14

of significant weight. It addresses a number of issues which are relevant to the determination

of this application.

9.3 The applicant argues that:

• Should the Council consider that a 5-year housing land supply should be calculated

against the housing requirement in Core Strategy Policy 4, a 5 year housing land supply

cannot be demonstrated and the tilted balance should be engaged (NPPF Para 11).

• Should the LPA consider that the 5 year housing land supply should be assessed on

the basis of the standard method local housing need (set out in the NPPF), then Core

Strategy Policy 4 and Local Plan Policy G3 are out of date and the tilted balance should

apply for the following reasons:

• As the development plan housing target is out of date, the settlement boundaries must

be out of date. This is the conclusion reached by the recent Pear Tree Lane appeal

decision.

• The application of the Standard Method results in a radically different spatial distribution

of housing across the Central Lancashire Housing Market Area, when compared with

the adopted development plan strategy. This proposition is endorsed in the High Court

Judgement.

9.4 The main issues are:

• Whether the proposal complies with G3 of the Local Plan;

• Whether the Council can demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing land,

• Whether or not the most important policies of the development plan are out of date,

having regard to the 5-year supply or to other considerations (see 9.3 above);

• Whether there are adverse impacts which significantly and demonstrably outweigh the

benefits of the development;

• Whether there are any materials considerations which would justify the proposed

development on safeguarded land at this time.

9.5 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that

applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development

plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for the

application consists of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy (CLCS) adopted in July 2012 and

the South Ribble Local Plan (SRLP) adopted in July 2015.

9.6 The site comprises 3.6 hectares of agricultural land and is designated in Policy G3 of the

SRBC as land to be safeguarded for future development needs beyond the plan period which

runs until 2026. Paragraph 139 of the Framework states (amongst other things) that local plans

should identify areas of safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order

to meet longer-term development needs stretching “well beyond the plan period” (NPPF

139(c)); and plans should make clear safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the

present time (NPPF 139(d)). Planning permission for the permanent development of

safeguarded land should only be granted following an update to a plan which proposes the

development (NPPF 139(d)). It is considered that policy G3 is consistent with the NPPF.

9.7 There is an emerging update to the development plan- the Central Lancashire Local Plan

(CLLP) which is being prepared for the period 2021 to 2036. The application site forms part/all

Page 48

15

of five site submissions to the emerging Central Lancashire Local Plan. Of these five

submissions, three are for the whole site (two suggest it be used for housing, one that it be

protected). Of the two submissions this site forms only part of, one suggests it be used for

housing and one that it be protected. However, the emerging plan is at an early stage with

further consultation required before it can be submitted for examination. Therefore, the

emerging local plan is afforded limited weight in the consideration of this application, as the

policy may change during the process through to adoption.

9.8 The presumption in favour of sustainable development in paragraph 11(d) of the

Framework directs that where the policies which are most important for determining the

application are out of date the “tilted balance” applies. This means that permission should be

granted unless the policies of the Framework that protect areas, of particular importance

provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or any adverse impacts of

granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when

assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

9.9 Paragraph 73 of the Framework also requires the Council to maintain a supply of

deliverable sites sufficient to meet a minimum of 5 years’ worth of housing against the Council’s

requirement or local housing need. If the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of

deliverable sites, Footnote 7 of the Framework establishes that the policies of the Development

Plan which are most important for determining the application are out of date.

Five-year Housing Land Supply

9.10 Under paragraph 73 of the Framework, there are two main elements to consider: (i) what

is the housing requirement against which the supply should be measured; and (ii) whether the

site identified in the land supply can deliver the required number within the next 5 years.

Housing Requirement

9.11 The housing requirement in the adopted strategic policy (for the purposes of NPPF 73) is

Policy 4 of the CLCS, which sets out a minimum of 417 dwelling per annum (dpa) for South

Ribble to 2026. The CLCS was adopted in 2012. It was based on evidence for the housing

requirement which is out of date as it relates to the RSS, which has been revoked. The RSS

housing requirement for Central Lancs was not based on an objective assessment of housing

need, it was derived from the RSS. Paragraph 73 and footnote 37 of the Framework states

that if strategic Housing Policies are more than 5 years old, a 5-year housing land supply

(5YHLS) should be calculated against an area’s local housing need (LHN), unless the strategic

housing policies have been reviewed and found not to require updating. It is considered that

the CLCS housing requirement has been reviewed and found not to require updating (in the

light of the evidence at the last Inquiry and the Planning Court Judgment). The outcome of the

review was the first Memorandum of Understanding (MoU 1), which sought (in essence) to

continue with the housing requirement in Policy 4, for a limited period of 3 years and/or until

the position had been further reviewed. The position has been further reviewed (for the

purposes of NPPF 73 and fn 37), particularly in the light of the re-publication of the NPPF and

establishment of the standard method as the basis on which housing requirements should now

be based, in order to boost significantly the supply of housing (see e.g. NPPF 59, 60 and 73).

Other factors have also been considered, including the Planning Court decision, the process

which has resulted in the Second Memorandum of Understanding (such as the period of

consultation), the Pear Tree Lane decision, the challenge to the adoption by Preston CC of the

Second MoU and the consequences for housing delivery across the Central Lancs Housing

Market Area. It is considered that Policy 4(a) is out of date and that the housing requirement

should be calculated against the standard methodology contained in NPPF. The introduction

of the standard methodology is considered to be a very material change in circumstances,

Page 49

16

since the adoption of the CLCS, which renders it out of date. Indeed, this was the conclusion

of the Inspector at the Appeal, which was the subject of an express challenge (ground 3) which

failed. The Court concluded that this was a planning judgment which the Inspector was entitled

to reach and was properly reasoned (see paras 42 and 43).

9.12 Footnote 37 states that where the LHN is used as a basis for assessing whether a 5-year

supply of deliverable sites exists, it should be calculated using the standard method set out in

national guidance. As of the first of April 2020, the minimum LHN calculated using the standard

method for South Ribble is 191 d/pa. This is significantly less than 417 d/pa, which informs the

judgment that the housing requirement in Policy 4 is out of date. Accordingly, while the

distribution may be different (such that policy G3 is technically out of date), the significant

reduction in the housing requirement does not lead to the conclusion that more land is required

(outside settlement boundaries and/or in safeguarded land). Accordingly, Policy G3 can still be

afforded significant weight, together with Policy 1 JCS.

9.13 A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU2), dated April 2020, aggregated and

redistributed the LHN figures across the Central Lancashire area to reflect the most sustainable

pattern of development in the sub region and to align with City Deal aspirations of Preston and

South Ribble (consistent with a recent housing study). This provided for an increase to 328

d/pa for South Ribble from the LHN housing requirement figure of 191 d/pa, with consequent

reductions in housing land supply in Chorley.

9.14 At a recent Public Inquiry (July 2020) in Chorley (Appeal by Gladman Developments at

Pear Tree Lane), the Inspector considered the MOU2 in great detail and concluded “that there

are significant and substantive objections to the proposed redistribution of the LHN and the

evidence which supports it, which remain outstanding and will need to be resolved, ultimately

through the CLLP examination”. (Paragraph 31 of APP/D2320/W/20/3247136).

9.15 The Inspector noted too that in the previous Chain House Lane Appeal decision, which

dealt with the draft version of the MOU2, the Inspector gave limited weight to the draft MOU2

and concluded that the Standard Method LHN figure for South Ribble should be used in that

case. The Pear Tree Lane decision nonetheless post-dated the adoption of MOU2 but found

that the weight to be given to it was limited, whereas full weight could be given to the standard

method LHN figure. Of course, the Pear Tree Lane decision has consequences for the housing

land supply in Chorley, which were found not to have a 5-year supply of housing.

9.16 The latest position is that Preston City Council’s Cabinet has taken the decision to

withdraw from the position in MOU2 in light of and a legal challenge to its decision to sign the

MOU and the Pear Tree Lane appeal decision.

9.17 Based upon the above (and the other factors mentioned in 9.11), it is considered that the

Council’s housing requirement is the LHN for South Ribble of 191 dpa, which should be used

for calculating the 5YHS for this application.

Housing Land Supply Needs

9.18 Based upon the table below using the LHN standard methodology the Council can

demonstrate a very significant 5-year housing supply which includes a 5% buffer and excludes

10% for small sites too. The evidence demonstrates that there is no imperative to release this

site now, contrary to the local and national policy on safeguarded land and in advance of a

comprehensive review of the local plan and a consideration of which are the most sustainable

locations to be developed (if any), in order to meet a need for housing.

Page 50

17

Minimum Requirement (standard

methodology)

190.59

Annual Requirement (standard methodology)

plus 5% buffer

200.12

Current five year supply 2685.00

Supply excluding 10% of small sites 2664.60

Years Supply 13.32

Conclusion on five-year Housing Land Supply

9.19 Overall, considering the provision of the development plan and the relevant national policy

and guidance, the Council is able to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites

measured against LHN for South Ribble. Indeed, the supply is healthy and the weight to be

attached to the benefits of delivering more market housing in this area is significantly reduced.

There is no imperative to release safeguarded land at this time or in advance of any statutory

review of the development plan.

Most Important Development Plan Policies

9.20 Policy 1 of the CLCS set out the spatial strategy for South Ribble Borough, guiding

development to suitable sites and settlements. Policy 4 of the CLCS sets out the minimum

housing requirements of 417 per annum for the South Ribble (and Chorley and Preston) and

is an important policy.

9.21 Policy G3 of the SRLP is one of the most important policies for this application and the

application site is specifically referenced as S3 South of Coote Lane, Chain House Lane,

Farington. It constrains the proposed development and makes clear that: the land is

safeguarded and not designated for any purpose during the plan period; and that planning

permission will not be granted for development which would prejudice longer term

comprehensive development of the land. The principle of constraint is up to date and consistent

with the NPPF.

9.22 For completeness Policy G3 is set out below:

Policy G3 –Safeguarded Land for Future Development

Within the borough, land remains safeguarded and not designated for any specific purpose

within the Plan period at the following locations:

S1 South of Factory Lane and east of the West Coast Main Line

S2 Southern area of the Major Development Site at Pickering’s Farm, Penwortham

S3 South of Coote Lane, Chain House Lane, Farington

S4 Land off Church Lane, Farington

S5 Land off Emnie Lane, Leyland

Existing uses will for the most part remain undisturbed during the Plan period or until the Plan

is reviewed. Planning permission will not be granted for development which would prejudice

potential longer term, comprehensive development of the land.

Page 51

18

9.23 These three policies are the most important policies defining the need and appropriate locations for housing in South Ribble and the limitations on development on the appeal site as Safeguarded Land. 9.24 Policy 4 of the CLCS is considered out of date as there has been a change in national policy regarding the calculation of the housing requirements for the borough (see above). The applicant argues that because of the redistribution of housing within the Central Lancashire which arises as a result of the use of the Standard Methodology- Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan is out of date too. 9.25 The development plan housing target is derived from the North West Regional Spatial Strategy and is out of date (see above). It is acknowledged that there is a difference in the housing distribution contained in the LHN requirements for Preston, Chorley and South Ribble, compared with the housing distribution in Policy 4. On that basis, policy G3 could be considered to be out of date. However, the absolute housing numbers which are now required to be delivered in South Ribble are considerably less than required in the CLCS. Accordingly, whilst G3 might be considered to be technically out of date, it should still retain substantial weight, in the application of the tilted balance, especially in circumstances where there is a very healthy land supply position against an up to date housing requirement, the policy is consistent with the NPPF and there is no requirement to release safeguarded land to meet development needs now. Conversely, Policy 1 of the CLCS provides for growth to be concentrated in the Preston/South Ribble Urban Area, key service centres and strategic sites and is considered not to be out of date. 9.26 It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to policy G3 and to the development

plan as a whole. Nonetheless, policy G3 is out of date and the tilted balance is engaged. Policy

G3 nonetheless should be afforded substantial weight in the application of the tilted balance and

any conflict with policy G3 and the development should be afforded substantial weight.

9.27 On that basis Paragraph 11 d of the Framework requires, in applying the titled balance,

that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would

significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. As each application must be assessed on

its merits a balancing exercise must now be undertaken.

Planning Balance

9.28 The applicant sets out in the addendum to the Planning Statement dated September 2020

the following:

On the positive side of the planning balance, the following apply:

i. The scale of development accords with the settlement hierarchy as expressed in Policy 1 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 3.4 of the Local Plan.

ii. The delivery of open market housing to assist in boosting the supply of housing in South Ribble. South Ribble is an authority which signed up to the City Deal with the Government in 2013 along with Preston to deliver 17,420 new homes in 10 years. Both authorities have failed to meet this requirement of the City Deal and this only adds further beneficial weight.

iii. The delivery of 30% affordable housing which accords with the development plan and would assist in addressing the very significant and persistent shortfall in affordable housing delivery.

iv. There would not be conflict with the purpose of the reason for the site being identified in Policy G3, i.e. it has been safeguarded for development.

Page 52

19

v. The development is in an accessible location which can accommodate the development scheme socially, economically and environmentally.

vi. The provision of open space to meet the needs of existing and proposed residents.

vii. The development will fund the existing bus service for a 5-year period to the benefit of not only the prospective residents but the communities between Preston and Chorley.

viii. A range of social and economic benefits including the provision of New Homes Bonus, CIL, Council Tax revenue now, construction jobs and increased spending for local services and facilities.

The great weight to be afforded to the benefits associated with open-market and affordable

housing is consistent with the approach taken by the Secretary of State in recent appeals (e.g.

the Stapeley case) and by the Inspector for the recent Pear Tree Lane appeal decision. If it

were concluded, that harm arises from any conflict with Policy G3 the applicant argues this

would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the above range of benefits for the following

reasons:

ix. Any conflict with Policy G3 results in limited harm for the purposes of the planning balancing exercise given that it is out-of-date. See paragraphs 45, 48, 49 and 50 of the recent Pear Tree Lane appeal decision.

x. The LPA conceded through the appeal to be redetermined at Chain House Lane that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply using Core Strategy Policy 4.

xi. Any contention that the release of allocated sites would be harmed by the release of the site is not evidenced and Safeguarded Land is required now to meet the persistent and significant under delivery to date.

xii. Land designated under Policy G3 has been specifically chosen to meet development needs. This is a site that can come forward now as the open market and affordable housing need is clear. This is particularly the case in a Green Belt authority where the only significant opportunity to increase supply is from safeguarded land

xiii. The emerging Local Plan Review is in the very early stages and therefore there can be no concerns on prematurity or prejudice to that plan.

xiv. The development meets the three dimensions to sustainable development and is in the control of one of the North West’s most active developers who have and wish to continue to invest in South Ribble.

9.29 The applicant is clear that the principle of development is therefore, acceptable. The

Council contest this conclusion and consider that significant weight must be attached to the

following:

9.30 Significant weight should be attached to Policy G3 (as set out above). Whilst it may be

technically out of date, the Council can deliver the housing numbers that have been set by

Central Government (191 d/pa). To the extent that it can be demonstrated that neither Preston

nor Chorley can meet their LHN figures, this is an issue which needs to be addressed through

the Plan making process, which is the clear logic of the Pear Tree Lane decision and the legal

challenge to second MoU. It is only during a Local Plan process that the need for South Ribble

to accommodate housing above its own requirement can be assessed, in the light of an

examination of constraints to delivery. This is entirely consistent with Policy G3, which seeks to

Page 53

20

protect this site from development in this Plan period and beyond, in order to meet longer term

needs. It is also consistent with the LPA’s demonstration of a land supply over 13 years.

9.31 The Housing Delivery Test compares the delivery of housing within each local planning

authority over the past three years against the required number of net additional

dwellings. Delivery of the full requirement would result in a score of 100%. South Ribble has

scored more than 100% in each year since the introduction of the HDT in 2018 – delivering

126% of its required number in 2018/19 and 191% in 2019/20

In South Ribble, during the first six months of the year, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the

housing surveys identified the completion of 147 dwellings in the borough, above 50% of the

Standard Method target for the year. This gives the Council confidence that the LHN target

using the standard methodology will be met. Further, the Council consider that South Ribble can

(on the most recent figures) demonstrate a 13-year housing supply. This would confirm that

there is no under delivery of housing in the LPA using the standard method. This significantly

tempers the weight to be attached to the benefit of delivering more market housing (see

Appellant’s point (ii) above). The site is not required now to meet any persistent under-supply of

housing (as claimed).

9.32 The proposed development would clearly conflict with the site’s designation as

Safeguarded Land. The policy remains consistent with Paragraph 139 of the Framework in not

only safeguarding land to meet longer term development needs but until the Plan is reviewed.

Policy G3 is not specifically safeguarded land solely for the purposes of residential development.

Rather, Policy G3 states “land remains safeguarded and not designated for any specific

purpose”. The Policy explains that existing uses will for the most part remain undisturbed until

the plan is reviewed. At that stage the land designation will be considered through the statutory

process. Therefore, significant weight should be attached to ensuring Policy G3 remains

safeguarded until the Local Plan is reviewed. The Appellant’s case (see point iv above) is not

accepted.

9.33 The Framework makes clear at Paragraph 15 that the planning system should be genuinely

plan led with local plans providing a positive vision for the future of the area… and a platform for

local people to shape their surroundings. The application site forms part of a wider site that has

been safeguarded and the ethos of the current local plan for large scale sites is to require

masterplans to be prepared to ensure that such sites are developed in a comprehensive manner.

Therefore, should this site be required for development, concern is raised about the piecemeal

nature of the application without due regard to the surrounding site.

9.34 The current review of the local plan will provide the opportunity to consider whether new

development of a garden village type settlement is the more appropriate way to plan for

sustainable growth within South Ribble. The problems associated with Air Quality have become

more understood and through the local plan review, safeguarded land may be required to remain

free from development while other forms and settlement patterns within the Borough can be

considered. It is acknowledged that little weight can be attached to the review of the local plan

at this stage, however the proposed development as a permanent development is considered

to be contrary to Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan as it would prevent the possible long-

term comprehensive development of the land.

9.35 In 2014 the site known as Coote Lane, Farington, Leyland adjacent to the current

application was the subject of a planning application for 105 dwellings which was dismissed at

Appeal (Appeal ref; APP/F2360/A/13/22022973). Paragraph 18 of the said Decision Letter

concludes that the proposal (which was subject to similar policies of the current application)

would seriously undermine the Council’s ability to manage the comprehensive development of

the area. Paragraph 22 of the Decision Letter concludes that the proposal would harm the

Page 54

21

Council’s ability to manage the comprehensive development of the area “That is to ensure

sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support

growth, and to coordinate development requirements”.

9.36 Significant weight should be attached to this aspect and this argument was accepted by

the Inspector at the original Public Inquiry for this site without challenge (see paragraph 66 of

the Appeal Decision Notice ref; APP/F2360/W/19/3234070).

9.37 A further concern in relation to the lack of comprehensive development relates to the

location of the site at a distance from the existing urban area, thus creating a disconnected

pocket of housing which would not establish a strong sense of place or optimise the potential of

the site. Again, significant weight should be attached as these points too were accepted by the

Inspector without subsequent challenge (See paragraph 71 and 72 of the Appeal Decision

Notice Ref: APP/F2360/W/19/3234070).

9.38 A comprehensive approach to managing development in this area is necessary to maintain

the separation and identity of Penwortham, Farington and Lostock Hall, and to coordinate the

provision of services infrastructure, which the 2019 NPPF identifies is necessary to achieve

sustainable development. The Council’s approach for requiring preparation and adoption of

masterplans for larger sites has been successfully pursued in respect of other strategic sites in

the Borough and was endorsed by the Local Plan Inspector (IR Para 48). It proves the

opportunity to properly coordinate place-making and the provision of infrastructure and services,

achieve well-designed places, and for the effective engagement of local communities.

9.39 It is acknowledged that there is an agreement between the land owners to ensure that there

would be access from the appeal site through to the land in the control of Homes England. An

Illustrative Masterplan has been provided to demonstrate this aspect. However there has been

no formal consultation process with statutory consultees on the masterplan nor opportunity for

effective community engagement. There are issues regarding the cumulative impact of this and

other development schemes in the area.

9.40 In the previous Appeal Decision Notice, the Inspector acknowledged that the proposal

would assist with the Government’s objective of boosting the supply of homes including the

provision of 30% affordable housing. Economic benefits include employment during

construction, additional spending by new residents additional Council Tax revenue together with

Social and Environmental benefits arising from public and private amenity space. Other benefits

would include public transport and cycle parking contributions. However, the Inspector

concluded that “the majority of these benefits are generic and no more than would be expected

from any major house builder as such they attract limited positive weight.” It is accepted that

there are benefits derived from the delivery of more market and affordable homes on the site.

The benefits of market housing, given the strong housing land supply position, are of no more

than moderate weight. The provision of affordable housing is considered to be a significant

benefit.

9.41 Perhaps more importantly the Inspector concluded: “The benefits do not address the fundamental issue of the site’s location within safeguarded land and the harm which would result from the prejudice to potential longer-term comprehensive development of the land (Paragraph 94 APP/F2360/W/19/3234070). This conclusion is endorsed (and addresses) point viii of paragraph 9.28. 9.42 Development in an accessible location is a requirement for all development schemes. Given the above comments made by the Inspector in terms of accessibility and the site’s distance to the edge of the existing urban area, neutral weight is given to point v (accessible location) and point viii (Provision of a bus service). Indeed, the site is located outside a defined urban area and town centre and is surrounded by open countryside. Questions must be raised

Page 55

22

about the future of the bus service after 5 years when the funding would no longer apply. The likelihood is that the bus service will not become self-sustaining.

9.43 A City Deal for the South Ribble and Preston area was agreed with the South Ribble and

Preston authorities, LCC, the Local Enterprise Partnership and Homes England and was signed

by Government in 2013. The Preston, South Ribble and Lancashire City Deal is taking forward

£434M of new investment, expanding transport infrastructure, supporting the creation of some

20,000 new jobs and generating the development of 17,000 new homes over a ten-year period.

9.44 It is acknowledged that the proposed development would contribute to the delivery of

housing and would support the aspirations of the City Deal. However, the site does not form part

of the agreed sites that are subject to the requirements of the Deal and therefore little weight

can be attached to this aspect. The Council has identified residential development sites as part

of the local plan process of which there has been significant uplift in terms of numbers that

support the City Deal agenda e.g. Site P Altcar Lane estimated 430 dwellings in the Local Plan.

However, the site was granted permission for 600 dwellings. Further, the Inspector gave limited

weight to the benefits of the City Deal in the previous appeal for this site which was not the

subject of challenge (Paragraph 78 APP/F2360/W/19/3234070). The Appellant’s case on the

City Deal does not, therefore, add materially to the benefits of delivering more market and

affordable housing.

9.45 To conclude, although Policy G3 is considered out of date, substantial weight should be

attached to the harm caused by the proposal as a permanent development. The Council can

demonstrate significant housing under the application of the standard method and proposed

development would be contrary to Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan as it would prevent

the possible long-term comprehensive development of the land.

9.46 Piecemeal development of part of the site is incompatible with the Policy, would not

constitute sustainable development and would cause harm to the comprehensive development

of the area. Harm would arise from the loss of public confidence in the plan-led approach, to the

principle of achieving well-designed places, to the ability to properly coordinate place-making

and provision of infrastructure and services and to the engagement of local communities.

9.47 On balance, it is considered that the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits (to which weight has been attached). The proposal is not therefore

considered to constitute sustainable development.

Planning Obligations

9.48 Policy A1: Developer Contributions of the South Ribble Local Plan expects new

development to contribute to mitigating its impact on infrastructure, services and the

environment. South Ribble’s Infrastructure Delivery Schedule includes the following project

areas to be delivered by 2026:

• Public Transport;

• Cycle Schemes;

• Highway Improvements;

• Health;

• Education;

• Green Infrastructure/Public Realm; and

• There are also pan-Central Lancashire transport schemes.

Page 56

23

9.49 Contributions would be secured as a planning obligation through a Section 106 agreement

and through the charging schedule associated with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Additionally, for highways works the use of Section 38 and/or Section 278 would be the agreed

delivery mechanism.

9.50 The level of CIL for this development if planning permission is given would be calculated

as part of any reserved matters application once the details of the scheme were submitted.

Highway and Transport

9.51 The site is located to the rear of Oakdene on Chain House Lane. Chain House Lane is a

classified road with a speed limit of 40mph. The site would be accessed from a new priority

junction on Chain House Lane. Chain House Lane currently has a footway under 1m in width

running along its northern side and a footway varying in width from 1.6m to 0m along its

southern side within the vicinity of the proposed access. LCC as the highway authority has

advised that having reviewed the five-year data base for personal Injury Accident (PIA) the

data base indicates there have been a total of two slight incidents. LCC Highways has advised

that these accidents would not be worsened by the proposed development.

9.52 The application is accompanied by a Transport Impact Assessment which has been

reviewed by LCC Highways and found acceptable. No objection is raised to the proposed

development on Highway grounds subject to conditions and the signing of a Section 106

agreement to provide for cycle parking and bus contributions.

Character and Appearance

9.53 The site is 3.6 hectares in size and the application is for up to 100 dwellings/apartments

which would provide for 27.7 dwellings per hectare (DPH). An illustrative masterplan has been

submitted with the application.

9.54 Paragraph 124 of the NPPF provides guidance on design matters and makes clear that

great weight should be given to design matters. “The creation of high-quality buildings and

places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good

design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and

work and helps make development acceptable to communities”. The NPPF makes clear that

good design is now fundamental to the planning process. This needs to ensure design is not a

discretionary. Policy 17 of the CLCS and Policy G17 of the SRLP among other things, requires

development to be well related to neighbouring buildings and the locality in terms of its size,

scale and intensity (plot coverage).

9.55 The surrounding area is described as semi-rural with housing either one or two storey for

the most part in larger than average plot sizes typical of the semi-rural nature of the area. There

are some terraces located to the east of the site. The applicant has advised that the proposal

seeks up to 100 new dwellings which will consist of a mix of market and affordable housing

ranging from 1 to 5-bedroom properties. The Transport Assessment advises that the

development would include houses and apartments. Concern is raised about the use of

apartments and the potential height of this type of development. The site is relatively flat and

there are no three storey residential units within the immediate locality. The applicant has

since confirmed that a condition restricting the development to be two storeys would be

acceptable.

9.56 As the application is in outline with all other matters of appearance, landscaping, layout

and scale reserved, the provided site layout is largely illustrative, with the exception of the

proposed access. Whilst a detailed assessment of the application against these aspects would

Page 57

24

occur at the Reserved Matters stage, concern is raised that without a comprehensive

masterplan for the whole of S3 the opportunity to create well designed places would be lost.

Para 127 sets out a number of criteria which developments should meet to deliver well-

designed sustainable development. Permission should be refused for development of poor

design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of

an area. Read together, it is not considered that the NPPF supports the development of sites

in isolation of their surroundings.

Affordable Housing Needs Provision

9.57 Core Strategy Policy 7 Housing and special needs is applicable. The development is

required to deliver 30% affordable housing which is proposed within the application. The

Council’s housing officer has stated that there is shortage of certain types of affordable

housing. If the application is approved this aspect can be addressed through the Section 106

agreement.

9.58 Therefore, the proposed affordable housing element of the scheme meets Policy 7 of the

Central Lancashire Core Strategy.

Ground Conditions

9.59 The application is accompanied by a Geo Environmental Desk Top Study which assesses

the impact of the proposal with respect to the ground conditions. The Environmental Health

Officer has advised that subject to conditions controlling this aspect the scheme is acceptable.

Water Environment: Drainage and Flooding

9.60 The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy dated

April 2019. The Flood Risk Assessment has reviewed all sources of flood risk which includes

fluvial, tidal, pluvial, groundwater, sewers and flooding from artificial sources.

9.61 The proposed development site is located within Flood Zone 1 and covers a site area of

3.7ha. The water course known as Mill Brook runs from east to west across the site through a

small pond in the centre of the site. Consisting of three fields separated by hedges and ditches

there are tributary ditches which run around the east, south and part of the west boundaries of

the site.

9.62 As the proposal is residential in nature the development is classed as “more vulnerable”

as set out in Table 2: Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification within the Planning Practice

Guidance (PPG). The PPG states that this type of land use is appropriate for Flood Zone 1

providing the proposed development would not increase flood risk elsewhere.

9.63 From the submitted topographical survey Mill brook is between 0.6m and 1.0m below the

lowest site levels and the applicant has advised that the site levels will be raised to assist the

drainage connections to the existing watercourse, and therefore the site is considered to be at

low risk of flooding from rivers.

9.64 The report acknowledges that the site is situated in an area that has the potential for

flooding to occur at surface. The finished levels on site will generally be higher than at present

and the Drainage Strategy advises that it is not considered to be at significant risk of flooding

from ground water. Whilst there are no public sewers crossing the site there is a public

combined sewer running from east to west along Chain House Lane. Foul drainage has been

assumed as connecting to the existing combined sewer.

Page 58

25

9.65 The drainage strategy has been designed to ensure that the site can be developed without

increasing flood risk elsewhere. In line with National and Local Policy, infiltration was first

considered. However, the Geotechnical report has advised that infiltration techniques would

not be appropriate due to top soil overlying stiff boulder clay deposits.

9.66 The next option is to consider discharge to a watercourse and on that basis a series of

oversized pipes with flow controls together with underground attenuation tanks acting as

storage are proposed. The levels across the site would need to be raised by 1.5m to ensure

gravity connections can be achieved.

9.67 Third party representations raise concerns about previous flooding incidents which have

had serious repercussions within the area. United Utilities, and the Lead Local Flood Authority

(LLFA) have advised that the drainage strategy is acceptable subject to the imposition of

appropriate conditions controlling drainage, surface water and the appropriate mechanisms for

the maintenance and management of these aspects.

9.68 It is concluded that the submitted documentation and information demonstrates that the

proposed development would be at a low risk of flooding. It also confirms that surface water

runoff from the development can be drained sustainably ensuring that flood risk is not

increased elsewhere. The foul water drainage proposals do not raise any issues, subject to

conditions. The development complies with policy including the requirements of NPPF and is

considered to be acceptable in terms of drainage and flood risk matters subject to conditions.

9.69 The development thereby complies with Policy 29, Water Management of the Central

Lancashire Core Strategy, and Policy G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan and Section 14 of

the NPPF.

Ecology and Nature Conservation

9.70 The application is accompanied by an Ecology Survey and Assessment dated October

2018 which at the time of writing is being updated.

Trees

9.71 The application is accompanied by a Tree Survey Report and Tree Survey Drawing and

Root Protection Area. which advises just two of the 28 Tree/Hedgerows are classed as U un-

categorised one of these trees is dead and one suffers from significant die back. The council’s

tree officer has advised that subject to appropriate conditions controlling root protection areas

during construction and landscape management no objection is raised to the proposed

development. The proposed development would meet the aims of Policy G13 of the SRLP.

Education

9.72 LCC Education has been consulted and advised that a contribution towards school places

is not required.

Open Space Contribution

9.73 As the proposed development would result in a net gain of ten or more dwellings a

contribution per dwelling would be required for playing pitch of £1,507 together with a

contribution to equipped play areas. If planning permission was granted this could be secured

by a legal agreement.

Page 59

26

Employment and Skills Statement

9.74 Employment skills are a key priority across Lancashire, Central Lancashire and South

Ribble. Creating employment and ensuring local people can access that employment and have

the skills to do so is critical to ensuring the prosperity of our communities.

9.75 Partnership working through LEP and City Deal skills and employment bodies is ongoing

to ensure that employment skills issues are prioritised and acted upon to make a real difference

and to maximise opportunities coming forward. The proposed development of this residential

site provides a key opportunity within the construction industry. On that basis a condition is

recommended to secure these aspects and to ensure that the development meets the aims of

the Employment and Skills SPD.

Air Quality

9.76 The application is accompanied by an AQM report which has previously been assessed

by the Council’s Environmental Health officer who concluded that subject to conditions and a

financial contribution to monitor air quality the scheme was acceptable.

10. Planning Balance

10.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that

applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development

plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan housing target

at Core Strategy Policy 4(a) is considered out of date and the Standard Method should be

applied in the calculation of the housing land supply. The proposal conflicts with policy G3. On

balance, the proposal fails to comply with the development plan as a whole.

10.2 Policy G3 is considered to be technically out of date because of the different housing

distribution which results from the application of the LHN housing requirement across the

Central Lancashire HMA. However, that does not necessarily mean the boundaries of the

safeguarded land in South Ribble are also out of date, given the significantly reduced housing

requirement which results in South Ribble. It is considered that significant weight should attach

to policy G3 and safeguarded land designation in the application of the tilted balance.

10.3 Applying the tilted balance, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse

impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when

assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, or specific policies in the

Framework indicate development should be restricted.

10.4 It is acknowledged that there are benefits to the scheme (as set out above). However, the

Council has recently undertaken the end of year completion surveys and produced the annual

Housing Land Position statement and is confident that the borough has over 10 years housing

supply when using the Standard Method. This tempers the weight to be attached to the benefits

of delivering more homes on this site, in advance of a formal Local Plan review, even more so

when the site lies in safeguarded land.

10.5 The Council consider that significant weight should be attached to conflict with G3. There

is no identified need to release the land for housing at this stage (contrary to the applicant’s

case). Further, concern is raised about the piecemeal development of part of the site, without

any certainty that adjoining land will form part of a comprehensive well-planned development

(see 9.30 to 9.47).

Page 60

27

10.6 Overall it is concluded that the benefits of the proposed development are significantly and

demonstrably outweighed by conflict with the development plan and the adverse impacts of

the proposal. Material considerations do not justify the conflict with the development plan.

Rather, on balance, the proposal would not constitute sustainable development for the

purposes of the Framework and the Development plan policies when taken as a whole.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The proposed development provides for 100 dwellings on a site allocated as Safeguarded

Land under Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan. The main issue is whether the proposal

would amount to a sustainable form of development with reference to housing supply and the

comprehensive development of the area. The Council has demonstrated a 5-year housing

supply using the Standard Method as advocated by Central Government in 2020. As the most

important polices for determining this application are out of date a tilted balance exercise has

been undertaken in line with Paragraph 11 (d) of the Framework.

11.2 Whilst concerns have been raised by third parties about the ability of the local highway

network to cope with the additional traffic, together with concerns about ecology, drainage,

noise and air pollution, there are no formal objections raised from any of the statutory

consultees.

11.3 However, the site forms part of a parcel of land allocated as Safeguarded by Policy G3 of

the SRBC and on that basis the piecemeal development of part of the site would not constitute

sustainable development and would cause harm to the possible comprehensive development

of the area. It is concluded on balance that there are no other materials considerations to

outweigh the harm identified by granting planning permission.

12. Recommendation

Refusal.

REASONS FOR REFUSAL:

1. The application site is allocated as Safeguarded Land through Policy G3 of the South

Ribble Local Plan. The proposal by virtue of its nature, scale and degree of permanence

would be contrary to Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan, to which substantial

weight should attach. The Council can demonstrate a 5 Year Housing Supply, which

should be calculated against the Local Housing Need figure of 191 d/pa. Applying the

tilted balance, the proposal does not constitute sustainable development. Material

considerations do not justify the conflict with the development plan.

2. The proposal by virtue of its nature, scale and degree of permanence would be contrary

to Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan as the development would harm the ability

of the Council to manage the comprehensive development of the area. Therefore, the

scheme would not amount to a sustainable form of development.

RELEVANT POLICY

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

Central Lancashire Core Strategy

1 Locating Growth

Page 61

28

3 Travel

4 Housing Delivery

5 Housing Density

6 Housing Quality

7 Affordable and Special Needs Housing

9 Economic Growth and Employment

17 Design of New Buildings

18 Green Infrastructure

22 Biodiversity and Geodiversity

26 Crime and Community Safety

27 Sustainable Resources and New Developments

29 Water Management

30 Air Quality

Policy MP

South Ribble Local Plan 2012-2026

A1 Policy A1 Developer Contributions

G3 Safeguarded Land for Future Development

F1 Car Parking

G8 Green Infrastructure and Networks- Future Provision

G10 Green Infrastructure Provision in Residential Developments

G13 Trees, Woodlands and Development

G14 Unstable or contaminated land

G16 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation

G17 Design Criteria for New Development

BACKGROUND PAPERS Appendix 1: Revised Statement of Case APP/F2360/W/19/3234070 Appendix 2: Planning Court Judgement REF: Case No: CO/234/2020

Appendix 3: Appeal Decision Letter Ref: Appeal Ref: APP/F2360/W/19/3234070

Appendix 4: Ref: 07/2018/9316/OUT Previous Planning Committee Report

Page 62

OC

TO

BE

R

2020

ICE

NI

PR

OJE

CT

S

LIM

ITE

D

ON

B

EH

ALF

O

F

SO

UT

H

RIB

BLE

B

OR

OU

GH

CO

UN

CIL

Re

vis

ed

Sta

tem

en

t o

f C

as

e

LA

ND

T

O T

HE

R

EA

R O

F O

AK

DE

NE

, C

HA

IN H

OU

SE

LA

NE

, W

HIT

ES

TA

KE

, L

AN

CA

SH

IRE

.

Iceni Projects

London: Da Vinci House, 44 Saffron Hill, London, EC1N 8FH

Glasgow: 177 West George Street, Glasgow, G2 2LB

Manchester: 68 Quay Street, Manchester, M3 3EJ

t: 020 3640 8508 | w: iceniprojects.com | e: [email protected]

linkedin: linkedin.com/company/iceni-projects | twitter: @iceniprojects

Revised Statement of Case

Land to the rear of Oakdene, Chain House Lane, Whitestake, Lancashire. APP/F2360/W/19/3234070

Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of

South Ribble Borough Council

October 2020

Page 63

APP/F2360/W/19/3234070

Page 64

APP/F2360/W/19/3234070

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1

APPEAL SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA.............................................................. 1

PLANNING HISTORY ................................................................................................. 2

THE APPEAL SCHEME .............................................................................................. 3

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES ............................................................................ 4

THE CASE FOR THE COUNCIL ................................................................................ 6

INQUIRY PROCEDURE ........................................................................................... 12

PLANNING CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS ...................................................... 13

PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION ............................................................ 13

Page 65

APP/F2360/W/19/3234070 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 This revised Statement of Case has been prepared on behalf of South Ribble Borough Council (“the

Council”) in respect of the appeal by Wainhomes (North West) Limited (“the appellant”) against the

refusal on 27th June 2019 of a planning application by South Ribble Borough Council for the erection

of up to 100 dwellings with access off Chain House Lane (Ref 07/2018/9316/OUT).

1.2 The description of development was:

“Outline planning application for up to 100 dwellings with access and associated works.”

1.3 An Appeal against the refusal of the LPA was dismissed on 13th December 2019 by a Planning

Inspector, after a Public Inquiry in November 2019. The appeal decision was quashed by the High

Court1 and therefore the appeal stands to be redetermined.

1.4 The Planning Inspectorate has invited the Council to send any further representations addressing

any material change in circumstances which may have arisen since the original appeal decision was

determined; and to comment on the specific issues upon which the appeal was quashed. This revised

Statement of Case addresses these issues.

APPEAL SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

2.1 The appeal site is approximately 3.6ha in size and is a greenfield site bordered by Chain House Lane

to the north, Church Lane to the east and agricultural land to the south and west. It is east of the

villages of Whitestake and New Longton.

2.2 The site is located approximately 1.3km to the west of Lostock Hall and 5km south of the centre of

Preston. Access to the site is taken from Chain House Lane which is subject to a 40mph speed limit.

1 Wainhomes (North-West) Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government [2020] EWHC 2294

(Admin)

Page 66

APP/F2360/W/19/3234070 2

2.3 The appeal site forms part of a larger site allocated as Safeguarded Land for Future Development in

the South Ribble Local Plan under Policy G3, this being Site S3 ‘South of Coote Lane, Chain House

Lane, Farington.’

2.4 The site comprises three fields that are separated by hedges and ditches and are currently used for

grazing. A railway embankment is adjacent to the southern boundary. The southern, western and

eastern boundaries of the property known as Oakdene abut the application site and the property

known as The Bungalow abuts part of the western boundary on Chain House Lane. The site is

generally level with a slight fall in a southerly direction.

2.5 The appeal site is not located within a Conservation Area nor within close proximity to any designated

heritage assets or Tree Preservation Orders. It is located within Flood Zone 1 and therefore has a

low probability of flooding.

PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The planning history of the appeal site but also of other land in the immediate surrounding area is

relevant to the appeal.

3.2 There have been two planning applications submitted relating to the appeal site:

• 07/2018/9316/OUT: Application for Outline Permission for up to 100 dwellings with access and

associated works; and

• 07/2020/00505/OUT: Application for Outline Permission for up to 100 dwellings with access and

associated works

3.3 The appeal relates to the former application. The latter application (07/2020/00505/OUT) represents

a resubmission of the application 07/2018/9316/OUT which is the subject of this appeal. The

resubmitted application is yet to be determined.

3.4 To the east of the railway line, an outline application for erection of 107 dwellings was submitted in

November 2012 (07/2012/0692/ORM). The Council refused planning permission in March 2013 and

a subsequent appeal (13/000007/REFAPP) was dismissed in March 2014. The Inspector found that

the site was not necessary to ensure the housing needs of the Borough were met; and would harm

the Council’s ability to manage the comprehensive development of the area.

3.5 To the north of Chain House Lane is safeguarded land; with Pickering’s Farm located further north.

This is allocated under Policy G3 in the South Ribble Local Plan as Site S2 ‘Southern area of the

Major Development Site at Pickering’s Farm, Penwortham.’ An outline planning application for

Page 67

APP/F2360/W/19/3234070 3

development of the Pickering’s Farm site, allocated in Policy C1 in the South Ribble Local Plan for

residential-led development was submitted in January 2020 (07/2020/00015/ORM) together with an

application for the associated Cross Borough Link Road (07/2020/00014/FUL). The Council’s

Planning Committee in September 2020 has identified a range of unresolved issues with the

masterplan for this scheme.

THE APPEAL SCHEME

4.1 The residential development scheme to which this appeal relates seeks outline planning permission,

with only the matter of access applied for, for the erection of up to 100 dwellings (30% of which would

be affordable housing).

4.2 As the matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are not being applied for within the

appeal the submitted layout plan was only for indicative purposes.

4.3 Access to the site is proposed off Chain House Lane which would be located approximately 160

metres from the main junction known as A582 Penwortham Way/Chain House Lane. The scheme

details include a reduction from 40mph to 30mph from this junction through to the existing 30mph

reduction on Coote Lane. Vehicular access to the application site would be provided through the

introduction of a priority-controlled T- junction onto Chain House Lane.

4.4 In April 2019 further information was submitted which related to the following:

• An amended indicative housing layout to address concerns raised by the owners (Homes

England) of the future development of the neighbouring land.

• A revised Transport Assessment was also submitted to address comments made by LCC

Highways. These amendments include clarification about the 2m footway on Church Lane,

upgrade of the Bus Stops on Church Lane, and the submission of a Travel Plan to support the

application.

4.5 A revised footway drawing (Drawing Number SCP/18355/F02 Rev A) showing the additional detail

requested by LCC regarding pedestrian drop crossings with tactile paving linking into the existing

footway network and at the proposed access point was submitted on 7 May 2019.

4.6 An Air Quality Report was submitted in August 2019, which was then updated in September 2019 to

address the third RfR. The Council accepted the report, and the actions and recommendations

arising from this form part of the draft Section 106 Agreement.

Page 68

APP/F2360/W/19/3234070 4

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that all planning applications

must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations

indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan

5.2 The development plan for the purposes of determining this appeal comprises relevant policies in:

• Central Lancashire Core Strategy, adopted in July 2012; and

• South Ribble Local Plan 2012-26, adopted in July 2015.

5.3 Relevant local plan policies comprise:

Table 5.1 Relevant Local Plan Policies

Plan Relevant Policies

Central Lancashire

Core Strategy

Policy 1 Location of Growth

Policy 3 Travel

Policy 4 Housing Delivery

Policy 5 Housing Density

Policy 6 Housing Quality

Policy 7 Affordable and Special Needs Housing

Policy 9 Employment

Policy 17 Design of new buildings

Policy 18 Green Infrastructure

Policy 22 Biodiversity and Geodiversity

Policy 26 Crime and Community Safety

Policy 27 Sustainable Resources and New Development

Policy 29 Water Management

Policy 30 Air Quality

Policy 31 Agricultural Land

Policy MP

South Ribble Local

Plan

Policy A1 Developer Contributions

Policy F1 Parking Standards

Policy G3 Safeguarded Land for Future Development

Policy G8 Green Infrastructure and Networks- Future Provision

Policy G10 Green Infrastructure Provision in Residential Developments

Page 69

APP/F2360/W/19/3234070 5

Policy G13 Trees, Woodlands and Development

Policy G14 Unstable or contaminated land

Policy G16 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation

Policy G17 Design Criteria for New Development

5.4 The three Central Lancashire Councils are in the process of preparing a new Central Lancashire

Local Plan. An Issues and Options consultation was undertaken between 18th November 2019 – 14th

February 2020 under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Plans) (England)

Regulations 2012. The consultation included consideration of sites suggested for development; and

a further Call for Sites was also undertaken.

5.5 The progress with the new Central Lancashire Local Plan does represent a change in circumstances

since the previous inquiry. Having regard to Para 48 of the NPPF, very limited weight can be attached

to the emerging Local Plan given its early stage of preparation.

5.6 The Council approved a CIL Charging Schedule on 24th July 2013 which came into effect in

September 2013.

Other Material Considerations

5.7 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration as set out in Para 212.

Government’s Planning Practice Guidance is also relevant.

5.8 Supplementary planning documents, statements of cooperation relating to housing provision and

supporting evidence which is relevant to the appeal include:

1. Central Lancashire Affordable Housing SPD (2012)

2. Central Lancashire Design Guide (2012)

3. Central Lancashire Open Space and Playing Pitch SPD (2013)

4. Central Lancashire Biodiversity and Nature Conservation SPD (2015)

5. Central Lancashire Employment Skills SPD (2017)

6. South Ribble Residential Design Guide SPD (2013)

7. Central Lancashire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2017)

8. Central Lancashire Joint Memorandum of Understanding and Statement of Cooperation

relating to the Provision of Housing Land (Sept 2017)

9. Central Lancashire Housing Study (2020)

Page 70

APP/F2360/W/19/3234070 6

10. Central Lancashire Local Plan: Memorandum of Understanding and Statement of

Cooperation (April 2020)

11. Central Lancashire Local Plan: Memorandum of Understanding and Statement of

Cooperation – Statement of Common Ground (May 2020)

5.9 Documents 9 – 11 above are new documents which have been published or finalised since the

previous appeal decision. The Council is also in the process of preparing an updated Housing Land

Supply Position Statement which will be relevant to the appeal.

5.10 In addition, the Council considers the Land at Pear Tree Lane, Euxton, Chorley Appeal Decision

(August 2020) (APP/D2320/W/20/3247136) to be a material consideration. Chorley forms part of the

same Housing Market Area as Preston and South Ribble. The Appeal decision addresses a number

of planning policies and issues which are relevant to the determination of this appeal. Appeal

decisions are relevant material considerations because there should be consistency in administrative

decision making. This decision was taken after the determination of the Appeal.

THE CASE FOR THE COUNCIL

Reasons for Refusal

6.1 The Council refused planning permission on 27th June 2019 for three reasons, which were as follows:

1. The application site is allocated as Safeguarded Land through Policy G3 of the South Ribble

Local Plan. The proposal by virtue of its nature, scale and degree of permanence would be

contrary to Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan as the Council can demonstrate a 5

Year Housing Supply.

2. The proposal by virtue of its nature, scale and degree of permanence would be contrary to

Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan as the development would harm the ability of the

Council to manage the comprehensive development of the area. Therefore the scheme

would not amount to a sustainable form of development.

3. Insufficient evidence in the form of an Air Quality Assessment has not been submitted that

demonstrate that the proposed development would not cause harm due to air pollution and

therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy 30 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy.

6.2 The appellant submitted an Air Quality Assessment in August 2019, which was then updated in

September 2019. The withdrawal of the third reason for refusal was confirmed by the Planning

Committee on 18th September 2019.

Page 71

APP/F2360/W/19/3234070 7

Changes in Circumstances material to the Case

6.3 The Council considers that the principal changes in circumstances which are material to the case

are:

• The High Court’s judgement (August 2020) quashing the previous appeal decision. The claim

succeeded on Grounds 1 and 5. It failed on other grounds.2 The Council considers that taking

account of the judgement on Ground 5, Policy G3 should be regarded as out-of-date;

• The publication of the further Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) and Statement of

Cooperation regarding the distribution of housing need in Central Lancashire (April and May

2020);

• A claim for Judicial Review has been issued to Preston City Council’s adoption of the above

MOU, which has been given permission to proceed on all grounds;

• The Land at Pear Tree Lane, Euxton, Chorley Appeal Decision (August 2020)3 which is relevant

to how the housing land supply should be calculated at the current time, having regard to the

April/May 2020 MOU;

• The updating of the Housing Land Supply Position in the Borough in respect of the deliverable

supply.

6.4 Having regard to these matters, it is considered that the main issues between the Council and the

Appellant, are:

• Whether the Council can demonstrate a five year housing land supply against its housing

requirement.

• The weight to be attached to the conflict with Policy G3 in the circumstances of the case,

including the housing land supply position in the Borough;

• Whether the granting of planning permission would prejudice the comprehensive delivery of

development in the area, and whether harm would arise from the development of the appeal site

in isolation;

2 In particular, it is important to note that Ground 1 to justify quashing the decision, the Claim also needed to succeed on

Ground 3 (see the Judgement at para 39). Importantly for the re-determination, the Claim failed on Ground 3.

3 APP/D2320/W/20/3247136

Page 72

APP/F2360/W/19/3234070 8

• The weight to be given to the benefits and adverse impacts as part of the application of a tilted

planning balance;

• Whether the proposal complies with the development plan and, if not, whether there are material

considerations which justify the grant of consent.

6.5 The remainder of this section addresses the case which the Council will set out having regard to the

Reasons for Refusal, and these material changes in circumstances.

The Appropriate Housing Requirement Figure and Implications for Core Strategy Policy 4(a)

6.6 The Council will support the assertion in Reason for Refusal 1 that can demonstrate a five year

housing land supply It will address the appropriate basis on which to calculate the deliverable housing

supply, and whether the housing requirement figures in Core Strategy Policy 4 are up-to-date.

6.7 The Council accepts, having regard to Ground 1 of the High Court Judgement, that the process of

preparing the 2017 Strategic Housing Market Assessment and the September 2017 Central

Lancashire Joint Memorandum of Understanding and Statement of Cooperation relating to the

Provision of Housing Land constituted a “review” of Core Strategy Policy 4 in the terms envisaged in

Footnote 37 to NPPF Para 73.

6.8 However the Council considers that there has been a subsequent significant change in

circumstances related to the publication of the new NPPF (2019) and the introduction of the standard

method for assessing housing need. The statutory requirement is to review plans at least once every

5 years but as NPPF Para 33 and PPG Para 61-062-20190315 indicate, there will be occasions

where there are significant changes in circumstances which may mean it is necessary to review the

relevant strategic policies earlier. The High Court Judgement confirms in Para 43 that a housing

requirement which is greatly reduced from that in the development plan has the potential to amount

to a significant change. Furthermore, the first MOU was time-limited with Para 7.1 stating that it would

be reviewed no less than every three years and when new evidence that renders the MOU out-of-

date emerges. The three year time limit has now expired. The Council therefore considers that the

housing requirement in the JCS Policy 4(a) is out-of-date. The housing requirement is to be derived

using the standard method.

6.9 The standard method generates a housing requirement of 191 dpa for South Ribble. The Council

consider this to be a figure which is materially and significantly reduced from the requirement figure

of 417 dpa set out in Policy 4(a) in the Central Lancashire Joint Core Strategy (JCS). It considers

that the significant difference between the standard method figure and the Policy 4(a) requirement

represents a significant change which renders Core Strategy Policy 4(a) out-of-date and supersedes

the review of that policy which culminated in the September 2017 Joint Memorandum of

Page 73

APP/F2360/W/19/3234070 9

Understanding and Statement of Co-operation relating to the Provision of Housing Land. The

preparation of a new joint Local Plan is underway.

6.10 The three Central Lancashire authorities of Chorley, Preston and South Ribble have worked together

to commission and undertake a Housing Study4 and subsequently prepare a new Memorandum of

Understanding and Statement of Cooperation related to the Provision and Distribution of Housing

Land (April 2020) which was then updated through a Statement of Common Ground (May 2020) to

reflect the latest standard method calculation. The April document states at Para 2.4 that the Councils

do not consider it appropriate to maintain use of the housing requirements set out in Policy 4, which

is out-of-date. The Council’s position in respect of Policy 4(a) is thus consistent with those of the

other Central Lancashire authorities.

6.11 The 2020 MOU documents went on to set out an alternative distribution of the standard method local

housing need between the Central Lancashire authorities which was agreed at that time by the three

Central Lancashire authorities. However in the subsequent appeal decision at Pear Tree Lane,

Euxton, Chorley5, an Inspector found that it was reasonable to conclude that the guidance in

paragraph 2a-013 of the PPG was not intended to allow for a redistribution of the standard method

Local Housing Need (LHN) for the purposes of calculating five year land supply in decision making

in advance of that distribution being properly tested at a Local Plan Examination (DL Para 25). The

Inspector found that there had been significant and substantive objections to the proposed

distribution of the LHN. Accordingly the evidence which supported it would need to be resolved

through the Plan’s Examination (DL Para 31). Given the early stage of the Plan and the unresolved

objections to the MOU recommended figures, the Inspector attached very limited weight to the MOU

figures (DL Para 32). Instead he found that full weight could be attached to the standard method LHN

figure for Chorley given that its use was entirely consistent with the Framework and the PPG (DL

Para 33). The Inspector concluded that as set out in NPPF Para 73, the standard method LHN should

form the basis of the five year housing land supply calculation. It is considered that the same

conclusion should be reached in respect of this appeal.

6.12 The redistributed housing requirement figures set out in the 2020 MOU and associated Statement of

Common Ground (May 2020) are of limited and no material weight. A Judicial Review to Preston’s

decision to adopt the MOU is currently outstanding . The re-convened Inquiry will have to consider

the latest position, in light of any decision on the Claim, which might conclude that the document is

unlawful.

4 Central Lancashire Housing Study, Iceni Projects, Oct 2019

5 APP/D2320/W/20/3247136

Page 74

APP/F2360/W/19/3234070 10

6.13 Taking account of the High Court’s findings in respect of Grounds 1 and 3, the expiration of the three

year time limit in the 2017 MOU, the conclusions of all three Central Lancashire authorities that JCS

Policy 4a is out-of-date and the Pear Tree Lane appeal decision, the Council considers that the

housing requirement against which 5 year housing land supply should be assessed at the current

time is the standard method figure of 191 dpa.

The Housing Land Supply Position

6.14 The Council will present updated evidence on the housing land supply. It considers that set against

the standard method Local Housing Need it can demonstrate over 10 years housing land supply.

The latest position will be address at the Inquiry (if not agreed).

6.15 The Council considers that the City Deal is not part of the Development Plan and does not influence

the housing requirement; rather it assists in supporting infrastructure investment to bring forward

allocated sites and is in any case subject to a mid-term review.

6.16 The Council will argue on this basis that there is no need to release safeguarded land for

development in advance of a formal review of the statutory development plan.

Policy G3: Safeguarded Land

6.17 With regard to RfR2, the appeal site comprises green fields currently used for agriculture. It is

allocated as Safeguarded Land through Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan. The Policy

identified five areas of safeguarded land in the Borough, which have been identifided to meet longer-

term development needs if required, after a review of the Local Plan. The proposed development

relates to part of the area S3 South of Coote Lane, Chain House Lane, Farington. Policy G3 provides

that such areas are not designated for any specific purpose within the Local Plan period, or until the

Plan is reviewed. The policy also provides that planning permission will not be granted for

development which would prejudice potential longer term, comprehensive development of the land.

The Council will argue that by virtue of its nature, scale and degree of permanence the appeal

proposals would be contrary to Policy G3 and would infringe both aspects of the policy.

6.18 Taking account of the Planning Court’s conclusions in respect of Ground 5, the Council accepts that,

as a consequence of the introduction of the standard method and its use as a basis for calculating

the housing land supply at the current time, Policy G3 should be regarded as out-of-date having

regard to the difference in the distribution of housing arising from this across the three Central

Lancashire authorities compared to that in Core Strategy Policy 4(a). As set out in Section 9 herein,

the Council considers that the tilted balance in NPPF Para 11(d) is engaged.

Page 75

APP/F2360/W/19/3234070 11

6.19 However whilst Policy G3 is to be considered out-of-date, it does not mean that it is disapplied nor

does it prescribe how much weight should be given to the conflict with it. The policy is consistent with

Para 139 in the NPPF.

6.20 The Council consider that, having regard to (amongst other things) the consistency of Policy G3 the

NPPF Paras 139(c) and 139(d), the nature of the different distribution between JCS Policy 4(a) and

the LHN requirement, the current housing need in South Ribble and the housing land supply position,

the conflict with Policy G3 should be afforded substantial weight. The site does not need to be brought

forward to meet development needs at the current time and in advance of a new Local Plan. Whether

the site is needed for development, what type of development is appropriate and the distribution of

housing across the Central Lancashire HMA are issues for the emerging Local Plan to consider.

6.21 The Council also consider that the appeal, if allowed, would jeopardise the comprehensive

development of the site, contrary to the Policy. The appeal site forms part of S3 and if developed in

isolation would restrict the ability to provide a more comprehensive, well planned form of

development. Policy G3 states that development which would prejudice potential longer term,

comprehensive development will not be granted.

6.22 A comprehensive approach to managing development in this area is necessary to maintain the

separation and identity of Penwortham, Farington and Lostock Hall, and to coordinate the provision

of services infrastructure, which the 2019 NPPF identifies is necessary to achieve sustainable

development. The Council will argue that piecemeal development of the site in isolation from land

closest to the current urban area would not promote well planned development and is contrary to

Policy G3. The NPPF makes clear that the creation of high quality places is fundamental to what the

planning and development process should achieve (Section 12 of the Framework).

6.23 Part of the land associated with S3 is in the control of Homes England. It is acknowledged that there

is an agreement between the land owners to ensure that there would be access from the appeal site

through to the land in the control of Homes England. An Illustrative Masterplan has been provided to

demonstrate this aspect. However there has been no formal consultation process with statutory

consultees on the masterplan nor opportunity for effective community engagement. There are issues

regarding the cumulative impact of this and other development schemes in the area. The

comprehensive development of the site would be compromised by this appeal. Indeed, this was the

conclusion of the Inspector in refusing consent.

6.24 The Council’s approach for requiring preparation and adoption of masterplans for larger sites has

been successfully pursued in respect of other strategic sites in the Borough, and was endorsed by

the Local Plan Inspector (IR Para 48). This approach provides the opportunity for the coordination of

local infrastructure and service provision and for effective placemaking and is consistent with the

Page 76

APP/F2360/W/19/3234070 12

ambitions of the NPPF. The appeal scheme would harm the ability to achieve this, and would not

therefore represent sustainable development.

6.25 The Council will argue that following the dismissed appeal for 105 dwellings in 2014 adjacent to the

current application (Appeal ref APP/F2360/A/13/22022973) the position taken by the Inspector is

relevant to this appeal. Paragraph 18 of the said Decision Letter concluded that the proposal (which

was subject to similar policies as the current application) would seriously undermine the Council’s

ability to manage the comprehensive development of the area.

6.26 The Inspector’s findings from the previous inquiry are also relevant. The Inspector concluded that

harm would result from the development of the site in isolation, in advance of the remainder of

adjoining and nearby land forming S3; from the failure to undertake effective community engagement

as part of a masterplan-led approach; and from the prejudice to the potential longer-term

comprehensive development of the land. Whilst the decision has been quashed, these matters did

not form part of the challenge.6

6.27 It follows that the proposal conflicts with Policy G3. Whilst the policy may be out-of-date, substantial

weight should attach to the conflict. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with the statutory development

plan.

INQUIRY PROCEDURE

7.1 Having regard to the complex nature of the issues, the Council contend that the appeal should be

heard through a re-opened inquiry. It considers that the matters can be dealt with by two witnesses,

one dealing with planning issues and the housing requirement; and the second with the deliverable

supply of housing land.

7.2 The Council considers that the deliverable supply of housing land should be dealt with through a

round-table discussion.

6 They are therefore relevant considerations. See Davison v Elmbridge BC [2019] EWHC 1409 (Admin).

Page 77

APP/F2360/W/19/3234070 13

PLANNING CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS

8.1 A Section 106 Agreement will need to be entered into to secure the provision of on-site affordable

housing, air quality mitigation, open space and commuted sums for the bus service and cycle parking

enhancements at Lostock Hall Train Station.

8.2 The development would be expected to support a level of wider strategic infrastructure through CIL

contributions. The level of CIL for the market housing element of this development would be

calculated as part of the reserved matters application. These monies would be used for projects

identified in the CIL 123 list for the area. The Affordable Housing element of the development does

not attract a CIL contribution.

8.3 The Council envisages that the discussions which were undertaken as part of the 1st Inquiry regarding

conditions and planning obligations will limit the time necessary within a resumed inquiry needed to

address these issues.

PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION

9.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for

planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material

considerations indicate otherwise.

9.2 The Council considers that Policy G3 is consistent with the Framework, but as the quantum and

distribution of safeguarded land in Central Lancashire was influenced by the Policy 4(a) housing

requirements the Policy is to be regarded as out-of-date. Policy 4(a) is also considered to be out-of-

date for the reasons explained. The Council now considers that, taking this into account, the appeal

scheme falls to be determined using the tilted balance in NPPF Para 11(d).

9.3 The Council consider that there is a conflict with the development plan taken as a whole.

9.4 Applying the tilted balance, it considers that there are benefits which arise from the provision of

additional market housing and given the strong housing land supply position these benefits are

however of no more than moderate weight. The provision of affordable housing is considered to be

a significant benefit.

Page 78

APP/F2360/W/19/3234070 14

9.5 Economic benefits associated with the development proposals relate to employment during the

construction period, New-Homes Bonus and CIL receipts associated with the development, and

Council Tax receipts and spending from new residents. The Council concurs with the Inspector’s

findings from the previous inquiry that these can be expected from any major housing development

and, considered in context, attract limited positive weight. These would arise on any site that were to

be developed. Limited weight is given to a bus service that may only run for 5 years.

9.6 Provision of on-site open space and contributions to off-site play space are to mitigate the impacts

of the development. Development in an accessible location is a requirement for all development

schemes, and this is not a highly accessible location. These are consideration which the Council

judges to be neutral in the planning balance.

9.7 However, the site forms part of a parcel of land allocated as Safeguarded by Policy G3 of the SRBC

Local Plan. Piecemeal development of part of the site is incompatible with the Policy, would not

constitute sustainable development and would cause harm to the comprehensive development of

the area. The Council will argue that, applying the tilted balance in NPPF Para 11d, the benefits

arising are significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the significant weight arising from conflict

with Policy G4, arising from the loss of public confidence in the plan-led approach, to the principle of

achieving well-designed places, to the ability to properly coordinate place-making and provision of

infrastructure and services and to the engagement of local communities. The proposal would not

therefore constitute sustainable development. The proposal conflicts with the Development Plan and

there are no material considerations which justify the grant of consent. The Council will contend that

planning permission should therefore be refused.

Page 79

This page is intentionally left blank

Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWHC 2294 (Admin)

Case No: CO/234/2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

PLANNING COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 21/08/2020

Before :

MR JUSTICE DOVE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

WAINHOMES (NORTH-WEST) LIMITED Claimant

- and -

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOUSING

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

1st Defendant

-and-

SOUTH RIBBLE BOROUGH COUNCIL 2nd Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Vincent Fraser QC (instructed by Eversheds Sutherland) for the Claimant

No appearance and no representation for the 1st Defendant

Mr Giles Cannock QC and Mr Alan Evans (instructed by David Whelan South Ribble

Borough Council) for the 2nd Defendant

Hearing date: 17th June 2020

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Approved Judgment

Page 81

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Double-click to enter the short title

Mr Justice Dove :

Introduction

1. On 4 December 2018 the claimant applied for outline planning permission for up to 100

dwellings with access and associated works on land to the south of Chain House Lane,

Whitestake, Preston. That application was refused by the second defendant on 27 June

2019 and the claimant appealed under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning

Act 1990 to the first defendant. The first defendant’s duly appointed Inspector,

following a public inquiry in November 2019, decided to dismiss the appeal for reasons

set out in a decision letter dated 13 December 2019. This is the application pursuant to

section 288 of the 1990 Act in relation to that decision.

2. The application is pursued on a number of grounds which are set out below. However,

at this stage it is pertinent to note that in relation to ground 5 the first defendant

conceded that the Inspector’s decision should be quashed. In particular, the concession

is set out in the following terms in a letter from the Government Legal Department

dated 17 February 2020:

“This is on the basis that the Secretary of State agrees that the

Inspector did not expressly consider the specific point put by

the Claimant at paragraphs 80 - 81 Statement of Facts and

Grounds. That is, the Inspector did not expressly consider

whether the distribution of the housing requirement that would

result from the application of the Standard Methodology

within the Housing Market Area would

render policy G3 out of date irrespective of whether the

Council could demonstrate a five year supply of housing land.

Accordingly, the Secretary of State accepts that the decision

should be quashed but

only for the reasons set out in paragraphs 80- 81, paragraph

82 (failure to give adequate reasons) and paragraph 83 (in so

far as that paragraph relates to a failure to take into account a

material consideration) of the Claimant's Statement of Facts

and Grounds.”

3. The second defendant supported the decision which was made by the Inspector, and

contends that on all grounds the claim should be dismissed.

The facts

4. It is important, in order to understand the issues which arose in the appeal, to set out the

policy background and the history of issues relating to planning policy prior to the

consideration of the appeal. There were two important issues bearing upon the merits

of the appeal. Firstly, the question of whether or not the second defendant could

demonstrate a five year housing land supply. The materiality of the requirement to be

able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply pursuant to paragraph 11(d) and

footnote 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) is well

known. If a five year housing land supply cannot be demonstrated, then the tilted

balance contained in paragraph 11(d) should be applied when determining whether

planning permission should be granted. There were no footnote 6 policies engaged in

Page 82


the present case, and therefore if the tilted balance applied, it would mean 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 taken as a whole”.

5. The policy relating to maintaining a deliverable supply of housing land is contained in

paragraph 73 of the Framework and those that follow. Of particular relevance in the

present case is paragraph 73 and its related footnote 37 which provide as follows:

“73. Strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating

the expected rate of housing delivery over the plan period, and

all plans should consider whether it is appropriate to set out the

anticipated rate of development for specific sites. Local

planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply

of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of

five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement

set out in adopted strategic policies, or against their local housing

need where the strategic policies are more than five years

old37.The supply of specific deliverable sites should in addition

include a buffer (moved

forward from later in the plan period) of:

a) 5% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land; or

b) 10% where the local planning authority wishes to demonstrate a five

year supply of deliverable sites through an annual position statement or

recently

adopted plan, to account for any fluctuations in the market during that

year; or

c) 20% where there has been significant under delivery of housing

over the previous three years, to improve the prospect of achieving the

planned supply.

[Footnote] 37. Unless these strategic policies have been

reviewed and found not to require updating. Where local housing

need is used as the basis for assessing whether a five year supply

of specific deliverable sites exists, it should be calculated using

the standard method set out in national planning guidance.”

6. Against the background of this policy material much turned in relation to the merits of

the appeal on the question of whether or not a review of the strategic policy for housing

had been undertaken pursuant to footnote 37. If a review had been undertaken, and the

policies had not been found to require updating, then those strategic policies would

have been the basis for the calculation of the five year housing land supply. If a review

had not been undertaken then, since the strategic policies for housing were more than

five years old, the five year housing land supply would be assessed by reference to local

housing need calculated using the standard method prescribed by national Planning

Practice Guidance (“the PPG”). These calculations, as set out below, produced very

different outcomes.

Page 83


7. It was common ground at the inquiry that the strategic policy providing the housing

requirement within the adopted development plan was Policy 4 of the Core Strategy for

Central Lancashire. This Core Strategy was prepared and adopted by three adjacent

authorities: the second defendant, Preston City Council and Chorley Council, who are

all part of a single housing marking area identified as Central Lancashire. Policy 4

provides as follows:

“Policy 4: Housing Delivery

Provide for and manage the delivery of new housing by:

(a) Setting and applying minimum requirements as follows:

- Preston 507 dwellings pa

- South Ribble 417 dwellings pa

- Chorley 417 dwellings pa

With prior under-provision of 702 dwellings also being made up

over the remainder of the plan period equating to a total of

22,158 dwellings over the 2010-2016 period.

(b) Keeping under review housing delivery performance on the

basis of rolling 3 year construction levels. If, over the latest 3

year review period, any targets relating to housing completions

or the use of brownfield are missed by more than minus 20%, the

phasing of uncommitted sites will be adjusted as appropriate to

achieve a better match and/or other appropriate management

actions taken; provided this would not adversely impact on

existing housing or markets within or outside the Plan area.

(c) Ensuring there is enough deliverable land suitable for house

building capable of providing a continuous forward looking 5

year supply in each district from the start of each annual

monitoring period and in locations that are in line with the Policy

1, the brownfield target (of 70% of all new housing) and suitable

for developments that will provide the range and mix of house

types necessary to meet the requirements of the Plan area.

(d) Ensuring that sufficient housing land is identified for the

medium term by identifying in Site Allocations Documents a

further supply of specific, developable sites for housing and in

the longer term by identifying specific developable sites or broad

locations for future growth.”

8. In light of the fact that the Core Strategy had been adopted in 2012, on 27 June 2016

the Central Lancashire Strategic Planning Joint Advisory Committee received a report

to advise members of that committee of the appointment of consultants to carry out an

assessment of the Full Objectively Assessed Housing Need (“FOAN”) and prepare a

Strategic Housing Market Assessment (“SHMA”) for Central Lancashire. The report

Page 84


noted that there was a duty under section 13 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase

Act 2004 for the local planning authorities to keep matters under review which might

affect the development of their area or its planning. The object of the exercise which

members were being advised about was described in the following terms:

“7. The three Central Lancashire authorities have up to date and

National Framework compliant development plans consisting of

the Joint Central Lancashire Core Strategy, adopted July 2012,

and the three respective site allocations plans, adopted by the

respective authorities on varying dates but all in July 2015.

The Core Strategy is, therefore, reaching the point where,

government guidance suggests that there should be some

review as to whether policies need updating.

8. The housing requirement figures in the plan, set out in Policy 4 of the

Core Strategy, derive from the now revoked Regional Spatial Strategy

figures, which in turn are based upon population and household

projection figures dating from 2003. This is becoming an issue in

determining planning applications and, particularly, in defending

appeals where applicants/appellants are arguing that these figures, even

in a recently adopted plan, do not constitute the full, objectively

assessed need for market and affordable housing in each of the three

Council areas. The further argument is that this is in breach of the

requirement of paragraph 47 of the NPPF, which is that local planning

authorities use their evidence base to ensure that the Local Plan meets

the full objectively assessed need. In such circumstances elsewhere

planning inspectors have weighed in favour of the appellant. In addition

the High Court has supported the view that the starting point in

determining housing requirements is the full, objectively assessed need.

…

13. For the reasons set out above this work is necessary and

timely. In particular, taking into account the fifth anniversary of the

adoption of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy in 2017, the

revocation of RSS on which the Core Strategy figures are based and

the latest population and household projection figures all point to the

need to review this part of the local plan evidence base.”

9. Members were updated in relation to this exercise on 2 March 2017. By this time the

consultants had calculated a new FOAN figure, and this required finalisation so that the

SHMA could be completed. The report summarised the findings in relation to the

FOAN calculation, and the relationship between the FOAN figure that had been

calculated and planned housing provision, in the following paragraphs, along with the

recommendation that there be a retention of the housing requirement set out in Core

Strategy Policy 4(a):

“19. In summary the relationship between the Full Objectively

Assessed Need for housing and the planned housing provision,

therefore is:

Page 85


• The FOAN is the minimum that needs to be provided. Local

Planning Authorities can plan for more housing in their area, for

example, to meet economic growth aspirations.

• The FOAN is an evidence figure, not policy.

• The FOAN should be assessed at the Housing Market Area

level; Central Lancashire has a level of containment that exceeds

the threshold set out in national guidance.

• Apportionment of the FOAN by agreement between local

planning authorities within a Housing Market Area, which

differs from the figure for each authority, is possible as long as

the FOAN for the Housing Market Area is met.

Moving forward pragmatically

20. As indicated above, the FOAN for Central Lancashire is only

marginally lower (2%) than the housing requirement figure set

out in the Core Strategy. It is, therefore, recommended that the

Core Strategy requirements should be retained rather than

proceed to a partial review of the Core Strategy at this time.”

10. Also in September 2017 a document was signed by all three of the Central Lancashire

authorities, described as the “Joint Memorandum of Understanding and Statement of

Cooperation relating to the Provision of Housing Land” (“MOU”). The purpose of the

MOU is described in paragraph 3.1 in the following terms:

“3.1 The purpose of this document is to confirm and

demonstrate an approach agreed by the Councils concerning the

distribution of housing in the Housing Market Area referred to at

paragraph 1.3 above. This agreement is informed by the Strategic

Housing Market Assessment, August 2017. The Statement sets out

the agreed approach to the distribution of housing prior to adoption

of a new plan.”

11. At paragraph 4.6 of the MOU the Central Lancashire authorities agreed that it was

appropriate to retain the figures set out in Core Strategy Policy 4(a) and continue with

the monitoring arrangements under the policy. The substance of the agreement

contained in the MOU is set out in the following terms:

“1. Chorley Borough Council, Preston City Council and

South Ribble Borough Council agree:

a) To continue until the adoption of a replacement local plan

to apply the housing requirements set out in the Joint Central

Lancashire Core Strategy Policy 4, i.e.

Page 86


Chorley: 417 dwellings per annum

Preston: 507 dwellings per annum

South Ribble: 417 dwellings per annum.

b) That there is no requirement for each local planning authority

to meet its identified individual Objectively Assessed Need for

housing where higher in view of this agreement and the

longstanding and continuing joint working between the Councils.

c) To continue the existing monitoring arrangements for the

Central Lancashire Core Strategy and individual local plans to

confirm that the MOU is delivering as intended.

7. Review

7.1 The document will be reviewed no less than every three

years and will be reviewed when new evidence that renders

this MOU out of date emerges.”

12. It was the claimant’s contention at the public inquiry in relation to the appeal that the

events of 2016 and 2017 set out above, taken as a whole, were a review of the adopted

strategic policies containing the second defendant’s housing requirement for the

purposes of footnote 37, such that the housing land supply should continue to be

calculated against the figure contained in Core Strategy Policy 4(a). In support of this

contention the claimant also drew attention to a number of additional features in the

evidence. Firstly, it was pointed out that the other authorities within the Central

Lancashire housing market area accepted that these events amounted to a footnote 37

review, and continued to use the housing requirement contained in Core Strategy Policy

4(a) for the purposes of calculating their five year housing land supply. Secondly,

reference was made to the second defendant’s own publication in relation to the housing

land position as at 31 March 2019, in which, in the section addressing the strategic

requirement, the document noted that the events of 2016 and 2017 “could be considered

to have been a review of the policy in terms of footnote 37 of the NPPF”. These features,

the claimant contended, supported the view that what had occurred was a footnote 37

review of the housing requirement which had endorsed the continuing validity of the

requirement contained in Core Strategy Policy 4(a), and its continued use for the

purposes of calculating the five year housing land supply.

13. By contrast, at the outset of the inquiry, the second defendant’s position was that there

had not been a footnote 37 review, and that the commissioning of the SHMA was

simply, as referred to in the committee documentation, a piece of evidence in relation

to housing issues. As in the publication in relation to the housing land supply as of 31

March 2019, reference was made to an appeal decision at Brindle Road, Bamber Bridge,

in which the Inspector had stated that he was not convinced that the events of 2016 and

2017 represented a review of the policies. Whilst this was the position at the outset of

the inquiry, during the course of cross-examination, the second defendant’s planning

witness conceded that, when the material was properly analysed, there had been a

review of the policies for the purposes of footnote 37, and therefore the housing land

supply calculation should be undertaken on the basis of the housing requirement in Core

Page 87


Strategy Policy 4(a). That this was the case is reflected in the closing submissions made

on behalf of the second defendant at the conclusion of the inquiry, in which it was

accepted on behalf of the second defendant that there were in reality only three points

that could be taken in support of the case that the MOU was not a review in the light of

the concessions that had been made. These were, firstly, that there had been no public

consultation in the process culminating in the MOU, secondly, there was not a review

of the whole of the policy and, thirdly, reliance was placed on the Brindle Road

decision.

14. A subsidiary argument made by the second defendant at the inquiry arose as a fall back

if it were successfully contended that the MOU and its associated processes did amount

to a review. The argument was based on the PPG. The provisions which were

particularly relied upon by the second defendant were those concerning how often a

plan or its policies should be reviewed. The relevant provision is as follows:

“How often should a plan or policies be reviewed?

To be effective plans need to be kept up-to-date. The National

Planning Policy Framework states policies in local plans and

spatial development strategies, should be reviewed to assess

whether they need updating at least once every 5 years, and

should then be updated as necessary.

Under regulation 10A of The Town and Country Planning (Local

Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended) local

planning authorities must review local plans, and Statements of

Community Involvement at least once every 5 years from their

adoption date to ensure that policies remain relevant and

effectively address the needs of the local community. Most plans

are likely to require updating in whole or in part at least every 5

years. Reviews should be proportionate to the issues in hand.

Plans may be found sound conditional upon a plan update in

whole or in part within 5 years of the date of adoption. Where a

review was undertaken prior to publication of the Framework

(27 July 2018) but within the last 5 years, then that plan will

continue to constitute the up-to-date plan policies unless there

have been significant changes as outlined below.

There will be occasions where there are significant changes in

circumstances which may mean it is necessary to review the

relevant strategic policies earlier than the statutory minimum of

5 years, for example, where new cross-boundary matters arise.

Local housing need will be considered to have changed

significantly where a plan has been adopted prior to the standard

method being implemented, on the basis of a number that is

significantly below the number generated using the standard

method, or has been subject to a cap where the plan has been

adopted using the standard method. This is to ensure that all

housing need is planned for as quickly as reasonably possible.

Paragraph: 062 Reference ID: 61-062-20190315”

Page 88

https://gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/5-Delivering-a-sufficient-supply-of-homes#para73

https://gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/5-Delivering-a-sufficient-supply-of-homes#para73

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1244/regulation/4/made




15. It was contended on behalf of the second defendant that the change between the

strategic housing requirement contained in Core Strategy Policy 4(a) and the figure

provided by using the standard method for calculating local housing need was a

significant change for the purposes of the PPG. On the basis of this contention the

second defendant provided a second justification for using the local housing need figure

for calculating their five year housing land supply. As has been alluded to above, a very

different outcome resulted from the figures available at the inquiry in relation to the

five year housing land supply calculation, depending upon whether the housing

requirement from Core Strategy Policy 4(a) or the local housing need figure derived

using the standard method was used. The claimant and the second defendant’s

calculations based on the housing requirement from Core Strategy Policy 4(a) for the

five year housing land supply were 3.24 years or 5.96 years respectively, whereas the

second defendant’s calculation using the standard method was a five year housing land

supply at the start of the inquiry of 17.8 years. This latter figure resulted from the

outcome of the use of the standard method which led to the calculation of a housing

requirement of 206 dwellings per annum (or 216 with a 5% buffer), as opposed to 417

from Core Strategy Policy 4(a).

16. The second key issue in respect of the application of the tilted balance was the

claimant’s contention that Local Plan Policy G3 (the other development plan policy

which was most important for determining the appeal) was out of date. Local Plan

Policy G3 is contained in the South Ribble Local Plan, which was adopted in July 2015.

Local Plan Policy G3 identified five areas of safeguarded land for the purposes of future

development. The appeal site was site S3. Safeguarded land, whilst not designated for

any specific purpose and not currently required for development, is safeguarded in order

to ensure that Green Belt boundaries will not need altering at the end of the plan period

to meet longer term development needs, and is a well-recognised planning policy tool.

The claimant’s contention was that if the second defendant were to use the standard

methodology rather than the housing requirement contained in Core Strategy Policy

4(a), this would lead to a very different distribution of housing requirements between

the three Central Lancashire authorities, and would clearly undermine the safeguarded

land provisions contained in Local Plan Policy G3 which were predicated upon the

housing distribution contained within Core Strategy Policy 4(a) as between each of the

three authorities. A redistribution of the housing requirements in accordance with the

local housing need figures to be derived for the three Central Lancashire authorities

would have significant implications for the Green Belt across Central Lancashire,

alongside the availability of safeguarded land and the need for safeguarded land to be

released across the housing market area to meet development requirements. In short,

therefore, the settled consensus in relation to the distribution of housing requirements

contained in Core Strategy Policy 4(a) would be completely fractured by the adoption

of the standard method for determining local housing need, such that conclusions

reached as to the extent of the need to safeguard land in South Ribble on the basis of

the housing requirement in Core Strategy Policy 4(a) could no longer hold, and Local

Plan Policy G3 would be out of date.

17. By the time of the close of the inquiry, and following cross examination of the second

defendant’s planning witness, it was conceded by the second defendant that for the

reasons which have just been rehearsed, if the local housing need figure derived from

the standard methodology were to be used that would render Local Plan Policy G3 out

of date and trigger the application of the tilted balance. The point was conceded by the

Page 89


second defendant in its closing submissions albeit that it continued to be contended that

significant weight should be attributed to any harm to the policy which it was argued

must be found as a consequence of the conflict of the development proposals with that

policy.

18. The key issue in relation to whether or not there had been a footnote 37 review and, if

there had, there had been a significant change so as to nonetheless indicate that the

standard method figure for local housing need should be applied were addressed by the

Inspector in the following paragraphs:

“14. In 2016-17 a joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment

(SHMA) was produced which identified an Objectively Assessed

Need (OAN) for the three Central Lancashire authorities in the

HMA. This totals of 1,184 dwellings pa, with 440 dwellings pa

for South Ribble. The three authorities subsequently published a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which set out that the

CS housing requirement figures in Policy 4 should be retained

for a number of reasons. The dispute between the parties in

relation to the housing requirement principally revolves around

whether the publication of the MOU in 2017 constituted a review

for the purposes of footnote 37 to paragraph 73 of the

Framework.

15. Mrs Harding suggested that this could not constitute a review because

there was no public consultation on the 2017 MOU. The MOU is not a

development plan policy document, and I am not aware of any guidelines

for its production, consultation and adoption. Even so, I would agree

that consultation would be a proportionate ingredient of a review, and

that it would assist in ensuring that such a document is fit for purpose.

16. There is limited evidence before me to support this and Mrs Harding’s

further contention that the whole of Policy 4 was not reviewed; i.e. the

SHMA only relates to part (a) in relation to the figures. Nonetheless, it

does provide me with further doubt about whether the MOU and SHMA

process leading up to it constituted a full review.

17. I acknowledge the Appellant’s reference to page 21 of the 2019 HLPS

which, when referring to the MOU, states ‘This could be considered to

have been a review of the policy in terms of footnote 37 of the NPPF’.

To my mind the word ‘could’ also raises an element of doubt, and

highlights that the situation is by no means clear cut. Mr Pycroft asserted

that whilst the MOU alone may not

have been a review of CS Policy 4 it was the outcome of the production

of the SHMA, and the entire process constituted a review. I do not agree

for the following reasons.

18. The SHMA is not a review of policy but part of the evidence base for a

future review of the plan. I have regard to paragraph 1.2 of the SHMA

which states: ‘The SHMA does not set housing targets. It provides an

assessment of the need for housing across the functional Housing Market

Area (HMA), making no judgements regarding future policy decisions

which the Councils may take’.

Page 90


19. Mr Pycroft’s evidence also refers to a 2016 report to the Central

Lancashire Strategic Planning Joint Advisory Committee (JAC). To my

mind the paragraphs he refers to simply inform members of the JAC that

the fifth anniversary of the CS is approaching, and that Government

guidance requires plans and policies to be reviewed. On reading the

report as a whole, it also informs members that the main purpose of the

SHMA is to ensure the Councils had a full objectively assessed need

(FOAN) in accordance with paragraph 47 of the former 2012

Framework. This is also evident in a subsequent report to the JAC in

March 2017 which sets out that the FOAN is an evidence figure, not

policy. Indeed, I note that CS Policy 4 is not specifically mentioned in

either of these reports and references to ‘review’ are in the context of a

future review of the CS.

20. I have also had regard to the Brindle Road decision where the Inspector

was not convinced that the MOU was a review, although I note the basis

on which these comments were made as highlighted by the Appellant. In

view of the above, and the inconclusive evidence supplied by the

Council regarding lack of consultation and review of the whole policy, I

do not consider that the SHMA process constituted a review of Policy 4.

21. I acknowledge that both Preston and Chorley currently use the CS

housing requirement in decision making and in their most recent

Housing Land Position statements. Whilst I do not have the benefit of

direct evidence from Preston and Chorley Councils, I have had regard to

the evidence produced by Mr Pycroft and it seems to me that there are

various other reasons, not solely

relating to the MOU, that they continue to use the CS figures and

consider that a review of Policy 4 has taken place.

22. The Preston City Council press release does not specifically refer to the

MOU, instead it refers to the costs associated with defending two recent

appeal decisions in their area which concluded that Preston did not have

a five year supply of housing. I cannot make any conclusions on this as

those decisions are not in the evidence before me. Preston’s latest

housing land position statement (HLPS) also refers to those appeal

decisions (at paragraph 1.6), and draws attention to the Preston Local

Plan examination where it was agreed that that there was no requirement

to reconsider the Objectively Assessed Need. Mr Pycroft pointed out

paragraph 1.9 of the HLPS in relation to the

MOU. However, to my mind this suggests uncertainty given the

punctuation of ‘review’ (in single quotation marks).

23. Preston’s HLPS goes on to explain at paragraph 1.10 that its’ OAN

resulting from the SHMA is lower than the CS requirement, and it seems

to me that this was a factor in the aforementioned appeal decisions. This

contrasts to the situation in South Ribble, where the OAN was calculated

to be very similar (and slightly higher) to the existing CS requirement.

24. Chorley’s 2019 housing supply statement also applies the CS requirement

figure but does not refer to the MOU in doing so. Mr Pycroft’s evidence

in relation to a recent appeal (Carrington Road) gives further

explanation; their reasoning for continuing to apply the CS requirement

Page 91


was that it was reviewed as part of the examination of the Chorley Local

Plan in 2015. I also have regard to a very recent Chorley planning

committee report in relation to a

resubmission of a previously dismissed appeal at Pear Tree Lane, where

Chorley set out their reasons as to why they consider CS Policy 4 is not

out-of-date.

25. It seems to me that the reasoning taken by Chorley and Preston for their

use of the CS figure is specific to those Councils and does not necessarily

directly apply to the South Ribble situation. In view of this, I am not

satisfied that the evidence demonstrates that they are applying the CS

figure for the reason that the MOU (and SHMA process) constituted a

review.

26. It has also been put to me by the Council that the 2017 MOU has

been overtaken by events, i.e. a ‘significant change’ has taken place.

Paragraph 33 of the Framework requires local authorities to update

relevant strategic policies at least once every five years if their applicable

local housing need figure has changed significantly. ‘Significantly’ is

open to interpretation; and moreover the Framework does not specify

whether such a change in the figure is positive or negative.

27. Paragraph 062 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on plan making

gives guidance on review of policies, stating that where a review was

undertaken prior to publication of the Framework in 2018 but within the

last 5 years, then that plan will continue to constitute the up-to-date plan

policies unless there have been significant changes in circumstances.

There is a difference in

interpretation of the guidance between the main parties.

28. The 2017 MOU was produced prior to the publication of the 2018

Framework. The PPG is not explicit in that it only refers to a significant

change as being an existing figure that is significantly below the number

generated using the standard method. I agree with the Council that the

wording of paragraph 062 does not necessarily discount a situation

where the existing plan figure is

significantly above the number generated using the standard method, as

is the case in South Ribble. This therefore adds little to the Appellants

argument that a review of the CS has taken place.

29. The 2017 MOU itself sets out review arrangements at section 7; no less

than every three years and when new evidence that renders the MOU

out-of-date has emerged. Such a review of the MOU is currently taking

place. A 2019 Draft MOU relating to the provision and distribution of

housing land has been recently produced by the Central Lancashire

authorities. This follows a Housing Study which has informed a

proposed interim position in advance of the adoption of the new Local

Plan for Central Lancashire.

…

33. I am mindful that if Preston and Chorley applied the standard method (not

the draft re-distributed figure) to their housing requirement now, Preston

would be able to demonstrate a five year supply and Chorley would not.

Page 92


This inconsistency in the way the three Central Lancashire Authorities

are currently making decisions relating to housing (together with the age

of the CS, current consultation on Issues and Options for a new Central

Lancashire Local Plan, and the introduction of the standard method)

have plainly contributed to current events where the three authorities are

consulting on a revised MOU to provide more clarity in decision making.

34. I am also conscious that my conclusions in respect of the housing supply

requirement for South Ribble may have consequences for decision

making by the neighbouring authorities. Convincing arguments have

been made by the Appellants for retaining the current CS housing

requirement in view of the redistribution which may potentially result

from this, but undue reliance seems

to be placed on what the two other authorities are currently doing and

how the use of the Standard Method will affect them. This is a matter for

their own decision making and for the emerging Central Lancashire

Local Plan in carrying out a full review of housing policies.

…

36. The Housing Study, albeit not a final report, acknowledges in its

introduction that the previously agreed MOU needs to be revisited, and

that a robust basis for working to agree an updated level of housing need

and its distribution across the HMA is required through an updated

MOU. I do not make any attempt to predicate the outcome of the final

Housing Study and the current consultation on the draft 2019 MOU.

However it is clear to me that the direction of travel by all three

authorities is towards the standard method and a re-distribution of the

housing requirement based on a range of factors including population,

workforce and jobs distribution and constraints (including Green Belt).

37. Having regard to paragraphs 33, 73 (and footnote 37) and 212-213 of the

NPPF, and the PPG paragraph 062, I conclude that the figure within

Policy 4 of 417 dwellings per annum is out-of-date on several counts :

i) the strategic policies are over 5 years old; ii) my conclusions that the

2017 MOU (and SHMA leading up to it) did not properly constitute a

review; and iii) the ‘significant change’ resulting from the introduction

of the standard method in the 2018 Framework and the Council’s

significantly lower figure arising from the standard method calculation.

Additionally, the MOU itself requires review by September 2020; indeed

a new version is currently undergoing consultation.”

19. The Inspector addressed the issues in relation to whether or not Local Plan Policy G3

was out of date as follows:

“Planning Balance and Conclusion

84. I have identified conflict with Policy G3 of SRLP. Together

with Policy 4 of the CLCS, these two policies within the

development plan are the most important for determining the

appeal. I now assess whether they should be considered to be out-

of-date for the purposes of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework.

Page 93


85. Policy 4 is contained within a plan which is more than five

years old, but this strategic policy is not out-of-date simply

because of its age. I conclude that it is out-of-date due to the

significant change identified above; the publication of the

Framework in 2018 which introduced at the standard method,

and the significant difference in the housing requirement

generated by that calculation for local housing need.

86. It is common ground between the parties that the appeal

proposals are contrary to Policy G3 and that it is compliant with

paragraph 139 of the Framework, however evidence differs as to

whether it is out-of-date for the purposes of paragraph 11(d) of

the Framework. I have concluded that the Council can

demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites by

virtue of use of the standard method for the housing requirement,

therefore Policy G3 is not rendered out-of-date for that reason.

87. There was some discussion at the inquiry as to whether

Policy G3 would be out-of-date for other reasons. I do not agree

with the premise that Policy G3 becomes out-of-date purely

because of the distributional consequences that would arise

across the Central Lancashire HMA as a whole if all three

authorities were to apply the standard method. Such a situation

is not one which is referred to in the Framework or PPG as

rendering this type of policy out-of-date.

88. Moreover, whilst I have given limited weight to the Housing

Study and the 2019 draft MOU, the re-distribution which is

suggested within the documents is not ‘radical’ as suggested by

Mr Fraser. I note that the re-distribution recommended in the

Housing Study is based on a reasonable set of criteria including

jobs, population, and affordability as well as Green Belt

constraints. The recommended share of the housing requirement

of 27.5% for Chorley, 40% for Preston and 32.5% for South

Ribble is not significantly different from the current CS

distribution of 31.1 %, 37.8% and 31.1% respectively.

Distributional consequences do not weigh heavily in giving me

reason to conclude that the policy is out-of-date.

89. This is a small basket of policies for determination of the

appeal, nonetheless Policy G3 prevails as the most important,

indeed it is the only policy specified in the reasons for refusal

relating to the main issues. Taken as a whole, there is conflict

with the development plan.

90. Consequently, this is a case in which the tilted balance is not

engaged. The most important development plan policy is not out-

of-date and the Council is able to demonstrate a five year supply

of deliverable housing land.”

Page 94


20. In the light of these conclusions the Inspector undertook what she described as a

standard planning balance, starting with the provisions of section 38(6) of the 2004 Act

and she concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.

The law

21. The principles which are relevant to the determination of this challenge are both

common place and uncontroversial. The decision to grant planning permission is

governed by section 70 of the 1990 Act and section 38(6) of the 2004 Act. The decision

is to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations

indicate otherwise. Amongst the material considerations which may very well be

operative in a decision, and were operative in the present case, are the provisions of

national government policy contained in the Framework. If planning permission is

refused, and the disappointed developer appeals under section 78 of the 1990 Act to the

first defendant, the first defendant enjoys all of the same powers, in essence, that were

enjoyed by the local planning authority. Frequently, as here, the first defendant’s

powers in relation to an appeal under section 78 of the 1990 Act will be delegated to a

planning inspector.

22. In St Modwen Developments Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local

Government [2017] EWCA Civ 1643 Lindblom LJ set out the familiar principles which

are to be applied in determining an application for statutory review of an appeal decision

under section 288 of the 1990 Act in the following terms in paragraphs 6 and 7 of his

judgment:

“6. In my judgment at first instance in Bloor Homes East

Midlands Ltd. v Secretary of State for Communities and Local

Government [2014] EWHC 754 (Admin) (at paragraph 19) I set

out the “seven familiar principles” that will guide the court in

handling a challenge under section 288. This case, like many

others now coming before the Planning Court and this court too,

calls for those principles to be stated again – and reinforced.

They are:

“(1) Decisions of the Secretary of State and his inspectors in

appeals against the refusal of planning permission are to be

construed in a reasonably flexible way. Decision letters are

written principally for parties who know what the issues between

them are and what evidence and argument has been deployed on

those issues. An inspector does not need to “rehearse every

argument relating to each matter in every paragraph” (see the

judgment of Forbes J. in Seddon Properties v Secretary of State

for the Environment (1981) 42 P. & C.R. 26, at p.28).

(2) The reasons for an appeal decision must be intelligible and

adequate, enabling one to understand why the appeal was

decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the

“principal important controversial issues”. An inspector’s

reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether

he went wrong in law, for example by misunderstanding a

relevant policy or by failing to reach a rational decision on

Page 95


relevant grounds. But the reasons need refer only to the main

issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration (see the

speech of Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood in South Bucks

District Council and another v Porter (No. 2) [2004] 1 W.L.R.

1953, at p.1964B-G).

(3) The weight to be attached to any material consideration and

all matters of planning judgment are within the exclusive

jurisdiction of the decision-maker. They are not for the court. A

local planning authority determining an application for planning

permission is free, “provided that it does not lapse into

Wednesbury irrationality” to give material considerations

“whatever weight [it] thinks fit or no weight at all” (see the

speech of Lord Hoffmann in Tesco Stores Limited v Secretary of

State for the Environment [1995] 1 W.L.R. 759, at p.780F-H).

And, essentially for that reason, an application under section 288

of the 1990 Act does not afford an opportunity for a review of

the planning merits of an inspector’s decision (see the judgment

of Sullivan J., as he then was, in Newsmith v Secretary of State

for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC

Admin 74, at paragraph 6).

(4) Planning policies are not statutory or contractual provisions

and should not be construed as if they were. The proper

interpretation of planning policy is ultimately a matter of law for

the court. The application of relevant policy is for the decision-

maker. But statements of policy are to be interpreted objectively

by the court in accordance with the language used and in its

proper context. A failure properly to understand and apply

relevant policy will constitute a failure to have regard to a

material consideration, or will amount to having regard to an

immaterial consideration (see the judgment of Lord Reed in

Tesco Stores v Dundee City Council [2012] P.T.S.R. 983, at

paragraphs 17 to 22).

(5) When it is suggested that an inspector has failed to grasp a

relevant policy one must look at what he thought the important

planning issues were and decide whether it appears from the way

he dealt with them that he must have misunderstood the policy

in question (see the judgment of Hoffmann L.J., as he then was,

in South Somerset District Council v The Secretary of State for

the Environment (1993) 66 P. & C.R. 80, at p.83E-H).

(6) Because it is reasonable to assume that national planning

policy is familiar to the Secretary of State and his inspectors, the

fact that a particular policy is not mentioned in the decision letter

does not necessarily mean that it has been ignored (see, for

example, the judgment of Lang J in Sea & Land Power & Energy

Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local

Government [2012] EWHC 1419 (QB), at paragraph 58).

Page 96


(7) Consistency in decision-making is important both to

developers and local planning authorities, because it serves to

maintain public confidence in the operation of the development

control system. But it is not a principle of law that like cases must

always be decided alike. An inspector must exercise his own

judgment on this question, if it arises (see, for example, the

judgment of Pill L.J. in Fox Strategic Land and Property Ltd. v

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

[2013] 1 P. & C.R. 6, at paragraphs 12 to 14, citing the judgment

of Mann L.J. in North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of

State for the Environment [1992] 65 P. & C.R. 137, at p.145).”

7. Both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have, in

recent cases, emphasized the limits to the court’s role in

construing planning policy (see the judgment of Lord Carnwath

in Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd. [2017]

UKSC 37, at paragraphs 22 to 26, and my judgment in Mansell

v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ

1314, at paragraph 41). More broadly, though in the same vein,

this court has cautioned against the dangers of excessive

legalism infecting the planning system – a warning I think we

must now repeat in this appeal (see my judgment in Barwood

Strategic Land II LLP v East Staffordshire Borough Council

[2017] EWCA Civ 893, at paragraph 50). There is no place in

challenges to planning decisions for the kind of hypercritical

scrutiny that this court has always rejected – whether of decision

letters of the Secretary of State and his inspectors or of planning

officers’ reports to committee. The conclusions in an inspector’s

report or decision letter, or in an officer’s report, should not be

laboriously dissected in an effort to find fault (see my judgment

in Mansell, at paragraphs 41 and 42, and the judgment of the

Chancellor of the High Court, at paragraph 63).”

23. In relation to contentions as to illegality arising in a decision as a result of a mistake in

fact, the leading case is E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA

Civ 49. At paragraph 66 of his judgment, Carnwath LJ (as he then was) concluded when

giving the judgment of the court that it was appropriate to identify a species of error of

law arising from a mistake of fact, and that the jurisdiction arose when the criteria which

he identified were fulfilled as follows:

“66. In our view, the time has now come to accept that a

mistake of fact giving rise to unfairness is a separate head of

challenge in an appeal on a point of law, at least in those statutory

contexts where the parties share an interest in co-operating to

achieve the correct result. Asylum law is undoubtedly such an

area. Without seeking to lay down a precise code, the ordinary

requirements for a finding of unfairness are apparent from the

above analysis of CICB. First, there must have been a mistake as

to an existing fact, including a mistake as to the availability of

evidence on a particular matter. Secondly, the fact or evidence

Page 97


must have been “established” in the sense that it was

uncontentious and objectively verifiable. Thirdly, the appellant

(or his advisers) must not been have been responsible for the

mistake. Fourthly, the mistake must have played a material (not

necessarily decisive) part in the Tribunal's reasoning.”

The claimant’s grounds and the parties’ submissions

24. The claimant’s ground 1 is the contention that the Inspector fell into error in concluding

on the basis of the material before her, and which has been set out above, that the MOU

and the processes which proceeded it did not amount to a review under footnote 37 of

the framework. Mr Vincent Fraser QC, who appears on behalf of the claimant, submits

that the Inspector, firstly, relied upon a matter which was plainly an error of fact when

she relied in her reasons in paragraph 19 of the decision letter on the suggestion that

Core Strategy Policy 4 was not specifically mentioned in either of the committee reports

from June 2016 and March 2017. Policy 4 is directly referred to in paragraph 8 of the

June 2016 report. Furthermore, it was plain from that report, the subsequent report of

March 2017 and the MOU (which again specifically referred to Core Strategy Policy

4), that the entire exercise was referenced to Core Strategy Policy 4.

25. Mr Fraser also submits that the Inspector’s reasoning was unintelligible and inadequate.

He relies upon the contention that the Inspector’s cross-reference to the mention of the

FOAN figure being an evidence figure, rather than policy, in the 2017 report, relied

upon in paragraph 19 of the decision letter, was a point of no consequence, since any

review would have to be supported by evidence in any event. In the light of the

consensus amongst the other Central Lancashire authorities, and indeed the consensus

at the inquiry, that what had happened was a review pursuant to footnote 37, Mr Fraser

submits that it was simply not open to the Inspector to reach any other conclusion but

that it was such a review.

26. On behalf of the second defendant, Mr Giles Cannock QC submits that the terms of

footnote 37 do not explain what might amount to a review, nor is it a matter touched

upon by the PPG other than to say that a review should be proportionate to the issues

that it is considering. Thus, he submits that the Inspector had a very broad area of

discretionary judgment in order to reach her conclusions as to whether or not a review

had in fact occurred. Mr Cannock submits that, read consistently with the established

principles for considering decisions of this kind, the Inspector’s decision as a matter of

planning judgment was founded upon five reasons which justified her conclusion that

a review had not occurred which are set out below. He accepted that there had been a

factual error in relation to the suggestion that there was no specific mention in the

committee report of Core Strategy Policy 4. His response to Mr Fraser’s submission

was that this was not a point of any material significance and this reference was simply

relied upon as supportive of other points raised in paragraph 19.

27. The five reasons identified by Mr Cannock are as follows. Firstly, he submits that the

Inspector’s report was clear, when in paragraph 20 it referred to “review of the whole

policy”, that the Inspector was reaching a finding that Core Strategy Policy 4 had not

been reviewed across the board or in its entirety, and therefore this included no review

of Core Strategy Policy 4(a). When the Inspector referred to “in view of the above” in

paragraph 20 of the decision letter, this was a reference back to all of the preceding

reasoning in paragraphs 15-19. In response to this contention Mr Fraser draws attention

Page 98


to the reference in paragraph 16 of the decision letter to the second defendant’s

witness’s contention that “the whole of policy 4 was not reviewed”, and further in

paragraph 16 to whether or not the MOU and SHMA process “constituted a full

review”. He submits that the Inspector’s distinction between a full review of Core

Strategy Policy 4 and a partial review of Core Strategy Policy 4(a) was clearly a

misapplication of the Framework’s policy in paragraph 73, which was purely concerned

with housing requirements, and not the other elements of Policy 4 related to monitoring

housing delivery or site allocations. On this basis, firstly, the second defendant’s

witness had been correct to concede that there had been a review of Core Strategy

Policy 4(a) and, secondly, the Inspector failed to reach any conclusion as to whether or

not Core Strategy Policy 4(a) had been reviewed, or provide any reasons for any finding

that it had not.

28. The second matter that Mr Cannock relies upon in support of the conclusion that the

Inspector provided appropriate reasoning for her decision that there had not been a

review pursuant to footnote 37 was her reference to the SHMA being a document for a

future review of the Core Strategy. There is, therefore, no reason for suggesting that the

SHMA itself supported the conclusion that there had been a review. In response to this

contention Mr Fraser observes that the documentation contained in the committee

reports made clear that the SHMA was commissioned to address the question of

whether or not the housing requirement in Core Strategy Policy 4(a) might remain

reliable, and not for some future unspecified review of the plan. The quote from the

SHMA set out in paragraph 18 of the decision is incapable of supporting the Inspector’s

conclusion, since it simply referred to the fact that the SHMA did not make any

judgment in relation to future policy.

29. The third matter relied upon by Mr Cannock is the absence of mention in the 2016 or

2017 committee reports of Core Strategy Policy 4(a). That was something which the

Inspector was entitled to rely upon in passing as supporting her conclusions. As set out

above, Mr Fraser’s response to this is to draw attention to this reasoning as in fact an

operative error of fact which amounts in and of itself to an error of law. Fourthly, Mr

Cannock relies upon the Brindle Road Inspector and the conclusions that he reached.

In response to this, Mr Fraser replies firstly, that the reasoning does not make clear at

all why the Brindle Road Inspector’s decision supported the Inspector’s view,

particularly bearing in mind secondly, the Brindle Road Inspector only addressed the

MOU and not the process leading up to it.

30. Finally, Mr Cannock points out that the Inspector relied upon absence of consultation

in relation to her conclusion that there had not been a footnote 37 review. He submits

that the Inspector was entitled to take account of the fact that consultation would have

been a proportionate ingredient of a review and assist in judging whether it was fit for

purpose (see paragraph 15 of the decision letter). Mr Fraser responds by noting that

there is no requirement for consultation in either law or policy and that this ingredient

of the Inspector’s reasoning is therefore quite unsustainable.

31. Ground 2 is focused on the sentence within paragraph 21 of the decision letter where

the Inspector, having acknowledged that the other two authorities within the Central

Lancashire area, Preston City Council and Chorley Council, were using the Core

Strategy housing requirement from its Policy 4(a), concluded that “it seems to me that

there are various other reasons, not solely related to the MOU, that they continue to use

the CS figures and consider that a review of Policy 4 has taken place”. Mr Fraser

Page 99


submits that the Inspector’s reasoning in this connection is quite unclear. This clause

from paragraph 21 of the decision letter suggests that the MOU was in fact a review,

and the fact that there may be other reasons to apply the Core Strategy figures in the

other authority areas of Central Lancashire is neither here nor there. Furthermore,

consistently both with the fact that Core Strategy Policy 4(a) applied to all three

authorities, and consistent with the clear policy in paragraph 73 of the Framework, the

policy and the joint committee process and MOU cannot properly be regarded as a

review in two authorities but not a review in the third. Logically, this is a matter which

ought to have been considered prior to the Inspector forming her conclusions in relation

to whether there had been a review in paragraphs 16-20.

32. In response, Mr Cannock submits that whilst paragraph 21 of the decision letter may be

infelicitously phrased, it has to be read together with the balance of the paragraphs to

which it relates, and in particular paragraph 25 of the decision letter where, having

rehearsed the evidence in relation to Preston and Chorley, the Inspector clearly

concluded that she was not satisfied that they were applying the Core Strategy figure

on the basis that the MOU and SHMA process constituted a footnote 37 review.

33. Ground 3 relates to the Inspector’s conclusions in paragraphs 26-28 in relation to

whether or not a significant change had occurred in the context of the paragraph of the

PPG as set out above. Mr Fraser contends that the Inspector was guilty of a clear

misinterpretation of the PPG when she concluded that it covered a situation where an

existing plan figure was found to be significantly above the housing requirement

generated using the standard method to identify local housing need. Mr Fraser submits

that this reading renders the PPG pointless, on the basis that if a significant change is

to be said to have occurred when the development plan figure is significantly above or

below the standard method figure, then the development plan figure would only be used

if there was no material difference between it and the standard method figure, and

therefore the PPG would be purposeless. Moreover, Mr Fraser submits that the PPG is

clear and consistent with the Framework in its approach to only regarding there having

been a significant change when the development plan figure is significantly below that

generated using the standard method, bearing in mind that the Framework seeks to

boost significantly the availability of housing land, and ensure that all housing need is

planned for as quickly as reasonably possible. In response, Mr Cannock submits that

the Inspector’s interpretation is consistent with a sensible approach to the PPG

reflecting that the judgment of whether or not there has been a significant change in

particular circumstances is one regularly undertaken in the application of planning

policy. The Inspector’s interpretation was a sensible and reasonable interpretation of

the PPG’s guidance.

34. Ground 4 focuses upon the Inspector’s conclusions in paragraph 34 of the decision

letter, in which she accepted that “convincing arguments” had been made by the

claimant for retaining the Core Strategy requirement in view of the redistribution which

might potentially result from the use of the standard method, and her conclusion that

these consequences were a matter for the other authorities’ decision making and the

emerging Central Lancashire Local Plan. Mr Fraser complains that the Inspector,

having found the arguments convincing, failed to follow them and, further, failed to

appreciate that any redistribution of housing within the housing market area required a

collective decision of all three authorities, and could not be done by individual decisions

of the authorities acting alone. Mr Cannock submits in reply that the claimant’s

Page 100


submission focuses illegitimately on a single phrase in a single sentence within the

decision letter. Further it fails to place that phrase in context and have regard to the

surrounding reasoning. The Inspector clearly explained that whilst she may have found

the Claimant’s case convincing there were other arguments and considerations which

were explained in the decision letter, in particular at paragraph 36, as to why the

claimant’s arguments could not prevail.

35. Ground 5 relates to the claimant’s contentions, ultimately accepted by the second

defendant’s planning witness at the public inquiry, that as a consequence of the use of

the standard method the distributional consequences which would arise across the

Central Lancashire housing market areas would render Local Plan Policy G3 out of

date. Mr Fraser submits that the Inspector’s reasons in relation to her conclusion that

Local Plan Policy G3 was not out of date are unclear and incoherent. Firstly, he notes

the Inspector’s finding that Local Plan Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan and

Core Strategy Policy 4 were the two most important policies for determining the appeal,

and those which paragraph 11(d) of the Framework required the Inspector to assess as

to whether or not they were out of date. Secondly, he notes that the Inspector’s reasons

for concluding that Local Plan Policy G3 was not out of date were, firstly, that the

distributional consequences relied upon were not a situation referred to in the

framework or PPG as rendering this type of policy out of date. This he submits is

illegitimate and unclear: the Framework deliberately does not seek to identify particular

circumstances when a policy may be out of date (save for the circumstances specified

in footnote 7 related to the five year housing land supply).

36. Thirdly, the Inspector’s second reason for rejecting this contention was articulated in

paragraph 88 of the decision letter. As set out above, the claimant’s argument was based

upon the application of the standard method to each of the authorities and the

distribution of housing that created. The split in relation to local housing need between

the authorities was Preston 23.3%, Chorley 56.1% and South Ribble 20.6%, which Mr

Fraser submits was radically different from the Core Strategy Policy 4(a) distribution

of Preston 37.8%, Chorley 31.1%, and South Ribble 31.1%. Mr Fraser submits that the

Inspector’s response to this argument did not engage with its substance, and her reasons

did not begin to explain how she dealt with this key point. She responded to it by

referring to the redistribution recommended in the Housing Study, and in doing so

compared apples with oranges, and failed to engage at all in the claimant’s argument,

based as it was upon the factual outcome of the application of the standard method to

these individual authorities. Thus, he submits that the Inspector’s reasons failed to

grapple with the claimant’s argument and provide an answer to it. In response to these

contentions Mr Cannock submits that the claimant’s submissions are an attack on the

Inspector’s planning judgment, and that she was entitled to look at the standard method

figures as proposed to be redistributed in the housing study. She was not obliged to

consider the distributional consequences of un-redistributed standard method figures,

bearing in mind that work was in progress to produce answers to the distributional

consequences.

Submissions and conclusions

37. It is convenient to start with the ground of challenge which is conceded by the first

defendant. This is ground 5, related to the conclusion that Local Plan Policy G3 was

not out of date. In my view there is conspicuous merit in this ground, on the basis that

the Inspector’s reasoning failed to deal with the claimant’s argument or explain her

Page 101


conclusions in relation to it. The argument which was made by the claimant was related

to the consequences of deploying the standard method’s measurement of local housing

need as a result of the earlier conclusions which the Inspector had reached. The figures

set out above identify a stark difference in the housing distribution using the local

housing need housing requirement, as compared to the distribution contained within

Core Strategy Policy 4(a). The Inspector simply failed to provide an answer to the point

raised in relation to the adoption of the standard method and its consequences for the

distribution of housing contained within that policy which, in turn, underpinned the

quantity and distribution of safeguarded land reflected in Local Plan Policy G3. It was

not an answer to Mr Fraser’s point at the inquiry (namely, that the use of the local

housing need requirement figures derived from the standard method presented a

radically different housing distribution to that in the Core Strategy) to compare the

distribution using the standard method with a Housing Study which contained housing

figures which had been adjusted by an as yet inchoate emerging policy. As Mr Fraser

submits, her approach involved a comparison which was not apt and failed to engage

with the direct consequences for Local Plan Policy G3 of her earlier conclusion that the

standard method for deriving the housing requirement should be used for the purposes

of her decision. Indeed, the Inspector’s reliance in her reasoning on a future exercise of

policy making, involving review and a fresh exercise of redistribution, reinforced the

point that Local Plan Policy G3 was in fact out of date and requiring review at the time

of making the present decision if the housing requirement derived from the standard

method was to be deployed. Further, her reference to this situation as not being one

referred to in the Framework or PPG as rendering this type of policy out of date does

nothing to explain either why the claimant’s detailed point in relation to the impact on

the current distribution of housing of use of the standard method did not render Local

Plan Policy G3 out of date.

38. I am, therefore, satisfied that the Inspector’s reasons were inadequate in that they failed

to grapple with and explain adequately her answer to the point raised in relation to the

consequences for the distribution of housing set out in the Core Strategy for each of the

Central Lancashire authorities, upon which Local Plan Policy G3 depended, arising

from her adoption of the housing requirement derived from the standard method for the

purpose of taking her decision. The concession made by the first defendant was

appropriate, and the claimant must succeed on ground 5.

39. I turn then to grounds 1, 2 and 3, noting Mr Cannock’s undisputed proposition that the

claimant must win on either grounds 1 and/or 2 as well as ground 3 in order to succeed,

bearing in mind that the points raised under ground 3 are in the alternative or a fallback,

and on the basis that a footnote 37 review had in fact taken place as the claimant

contends. Dealing firstly with ground 1, in my judgment there is substance in the

claimant’s complaint that the Inspector fell into error in suggesting that Core Strategy

Policy 4(a) was not mentioned in either of the committee reports. It is conceded that

this was an error. The concession is rightly made, since to my mind it is plain that on

any reading of the committee reports in June 2016 and March 2017 the central focus of

the discussions taking place, and the exercise underway, was an examination of whether

or not the housing requirement in Core Strategy Policy 4(a) remained valid. The point

which she made is an error and, as a consequence, incapable of supporting her

conclusions, thereby rendering her reasoning unclear and unlawful. In so far as this is

relied upon as an actionable error of fact, it satisfies in my judgment the requirements

set out in the case of E, since it was an error in relation to an established and verified

Page 102


fact which was not caused by either party at the inquiry. I note that in identifying the

reasons it is said that the Inspector had for forming the conclusion that there had not

been a review, the second defendant relies upon her reference to Core Strategy Policy

4 being absent from the committee reports, and it is clear to me that this reference was

a part of the reasoning she relied upon in reaching her conclusions in relation to the

review. I am unable to accept the second defendant’s suggestion that this is merely a

matter raised in passing: it was part of her reasoning.

40. It follows from this that one of the strands of reasoning said by the second defendant to

support the Inspector’s conclusions has been found to be legally flawed. Whilst I am

prepared to accept the contentions made by the second defendant in relation to the

Inspector’s reliance upon the absence of consultation, the reference to the Brindle Road

Inspector and the fact that the SHMA was not itself a review of the policy as all being

matters potentially relevant to her consideration of whether or not there had been a

footnote 37 review, I have found her reasons in paragraph 20 (flowing from paragraph

16 of the decision letter) in relation to reliance on the conclusion that there was not a

review of the whole of Core Strategy Policy 4 problematic. It is clear that footnote 37,

related as it is to paragraph 73 of the Framework, relates to strategic polices containing

a housing requirement. In this case the strategic policy containing the housing

requirement is Core Strategy Policy 4(a), and not the other elements of the policy which

relate to additional ancillary matters. The apparent reliance on Core Strategy Policy 4

not having been reviewed as a whole is further complicated by Mr Fraser’s pertinent

submission that in fact the MOU contained agreement not simply in relation to policy

4(a), but also in relation to those other ancillary matters. In short, it is difficult to

understand, and the Inspector failed to explain, firstly, why the whole of Core Strategy

Policy 4 had to be reviewed for the exercise to constitute a review for the purposes of

footnote 37 and, secondly, why the MOU did not constitute that review of the whole

policy bearing in mind the contents of the MOU. For all of these reasons, and whilst I

have not concluded that all of the claimant’s submissions have substance, I have

concluded that on the basis of the claimant’s arguments which I have accepted, they

must succeed in respect of ground 1.

41. Turning to ground 2, in my view Mr Cannock is correct when he suggests that ground

2 depends upon a highly forensic examination of only a part of the Inspector’s overall

reasoning in relation to the position of the other neighbouring authorities within the

Central Lancashire housing market area. Paragraph 21 of the decision letter could

undoubtedly have been more precisely worded. However, the reference to “not solely

related to the MOU”, and any lack of clarity which that gives rise to, has to be put in

the context of the balance of the reasoning on this issue in paragraphs 22-25 which are,

in my judgment, clear as to why the Inspector formed a conclusion that she was not

satisfied that the evidence demonstrated the other authorities were applying the Core

Strategy Policy 4(a) figure on the basis that the MOU, and that which proceeded it,

constituted a footnote 37 review. I am not satisfied, therefore, that there is substance in

ground 2.

42. Turning to ground 3, it needs to be borne in mind that the passage from the PPG in

relation to the need to review plans when there has been a significant change arose in

the context of the arguments about whether or not Core Strategy Policy 4(a) was out of

date and, in particular, was relied upon in paragraph 37 of the decision as one of the

reasons for the Inspector’s conclusion that Core Strategy Policy 4(a) was out of date.

Page 103


Whilst it is fair to observe that the only significant change specifically instanced in the

PPG is where a housing requirement is found to be significantly below the number

generated using the standard method, in my view this passage of the PPG needs to be

read purposefully and as a whole. The third paragraph of the passage of guidance makes

clear that a plan will continue to be treated as up to date “unless there have been

significant changes as outlined below”. The following paragraph provides some

examples where there may have been significant change but, as Mr Cannock points out,

the question of whether or not there has been a significant change warranting a review

of the plan on the basis that it is not up to date is not curtailed or circumscribed by the

contents of the final paragraph.

43. There may be many material changes in the planning circumstances of a local

authority’s area which would properly render their existing plan policies out of date and

in need of whole or partial review. I am unable to accept Mr Fraser’s submission that it

is impermissible to regard the emergence of a local housing need figure which is greatly

reduced from that in an extant development plan policy as having the potential to

amount to a significant change. Whilst he is entitled to point to the wider national

planning policy context of boosting significantly the supply of housing land, as Mr

Cannock points out in his submissions, the use of the standard method to derive local

housing need is part and parcel of the Framework’s policies to achieve that objective.

Moreover, the question of whether or not any change in circumstances is significant is

one which has to be taken on the basis of not only the salient facts of the case, but also

other national and local planning policy considerations which may be involved. In

short, in my view, the language of the PPG and its proper interpretation did not

constrain the Inspector and preclude her from reaching the conclusion that she did,

namely that the significant difference between the housing requirement in Core Strategy

Policy 4(a) and that generated by the standard method was capable of amounting to a

significant change rendering Core Strategy Policy 4(a) out of date. That was a planning

judgment which she was entitled to reach and was properly reasoned in her conclusions.

44. Finally, ground 4 is the claimant’s contention in relation to the Inspector’s observation

that the claimant made “convincing arguments” for retaining the current Core Strategy

housing requirements in view of the potential consequences in respect of redistribution

arising from deploying the standard method. This point arises in the context of the

Inspector’s consideration of whether or not Core Strategy Policy 4(a) is out of date or

should be retained as the basis of the housing requirement for the purposes of

calculating the five year housing land supply. I am unimpressed by the argument that

simply because the Inspector described the claimant’s arguments as convincing she was

then obliged to accept them as a sound and proper reason for continuing to use Core

Strategy Policy 4(a)’s housing requirements. Once again, the Inspector’s conclusions

need to be read as a whole in relation to this point. It is to my mind clear that the use of

the phrase “convincing arguments” was perhaps an infelicitous use of language, and

what the Inspector was describing was her view that the arguments were persuasive or

not without force. It is, however, clear, in particular in her conclusions in paragraph 36

of the decision letter, that those arguments are not dispositive of the question of whether

or not the housing requirement in Core Strategy Policy 4(a) should continue to be used,

and whether or not it remains up to date. I do not consider, therefore, that there is any

substance in the claimant’s ground 4.

Page 104


45. Drawing the threads together it is clear to me that this claim must be allowed, and the

decision quashed, in relation to the claimant’s contentions in ground 5 for the reasons I

have given. I am satisfied that in ground 1, the Inspector’s reasons for concluding that

the MOU and the SHMA process leading up to it did not properly constitute a footnote

37 review are not legally adequate, and that her conclusions are affected by illegality in

the form of an error of fact. I am satisfied that the conclusion the Inspector reached in

paragraph 37(iii), that there had been a significant change pursuant to the PPG arising

from the introduction of the standard method, was a planning judgment reasonably open

to her based upon a correct interpretation of the PPG (albeit other conclusions might

reasonably be reached by other Inspectors), and therefore she was entitled to conclude

that Core Strategy Policy 4(a) was out of date. I do not consider that there is any

substance in grounds 2 and 4 of the claimant’s case for the reasons I have set out above.

Ultimately, therefore, the decision has to be quashed in relation to ground 5, and will

need to be redetermined in the light of the conclusions set out above and a re-

examination of the planning merits pertaining at the time of redeterminationn.

Page 105

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decision Inquiry Held from 12 to 15 November 2019

Site visit made on 14 November 2019

by S Hunt BA (Hons) MA MRTPI

Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

Decision date: 13th December 2019

Appeal Ref: APP/F2360/W/19/3234070

Land to the South of Chain House Lane, Whitestake, Preston

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.

• The appeal is made by Wainhomes (North West) Ltd against the decision of South Ribble Borough Council.

• The application Ref 07/2018/9316/OUT, dated 4 December 2018, was refused by notice dated 27 June 2019.

• The development proposed is Outline planning permission for up to 100 dwellings with access and associated works.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural Matters

2. It is noted that a more detailed site address has been set out in Council

documents including the Decision Notice. Notwithstanding this, I find that the

slight difference in how the site address is stated has no substantive impact in

defining the location of the proposals therefore I have referred to the address as stated on the original application form.

3. The application was made in outline form with all matters reserved except for

access. Details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are therefore not

considered in this decision. An amended access plan (ref. SCP 18355/F02 Rev

B) and corresponding illustrative layout (ref. 1638WHD/CHL/IM01 Rev B) have been submitted which relate to a minor alteration to the access to avoid a tree

on the neighbour’s boundary. They have been agreed by the Council and the

Highway Authority. As the revised plans do not substantively alter the proposals, and would not prejudice the interests of interested parties I have

accepted them.

4. Following the submission of an Air Quality Assessment the Council agreed to

withdraw the third reason for refusal. Insufficient evidence in relation to air

quality therefore no longer forms one of the main issues, and the main parties did not give evidence at the inquiry on this matter. However I note that air

quality remains a concern for a number of local residents.

5. A completed agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning

Act (S.106) was submitted at the inquiry, and a Community Infrastructure Levy

(CIL) Compliance Statement was submitted by the Council. The S.106 makes provision for 30% affordable housing and on-site public open space, and

Page 107



Appeal Decision APP/F2360/W/19/3234070

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

contributions to off-site play space, mobile speed indicator devices, cycle

lockers at a local railway station, and travel plan monitoring. I am satisfied that

the agreement would accord with the tests set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations and have had regard to its’ provisions in the

consideration of this appeal.

Main Issues

6. The main issues in this appeal are:

i) The South Ribble Borough Council housing requirement and whether a five year supply of deliverable housing land can be demonstrated by the

Council; and

ii) Whether the proposed development would prejudice the Council’s ability

to manage the comprehensive development of the wider area of

safeguarded land within which the appeal site is located, with particular regard to policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan 2015.

Reasons

7. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires regard to be

had to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that if regard is to be

had to the development plan for any determination then that determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations

indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework)

is such a material consideration.

8. The development plan for the area comprises the Central Lancashire Core

Strategy (CS), adopted in July 2012, and the South Ribble Borough Council Local Plan (SRLP), adopted in July 2015. The appeal site forms part of a larger

site S3: South of Coote Lane, Chain House Lane, Farington which is identified

as Safeguarded Land on the adopted Policies Map. Policy G3 of the SRLP, in

relation to safeguarded land, is the only policy cited in the two remaining reasons for refusal. Policy 4 of the CS is also directly of relevance in relation to

the housing requirement and calculation of the five year housing land supply.

Housing Requirement

9. Policy 4 of the 2012 CS sets out the housing requirement for the three Central

Lancashire authorities; Preston, South Ribble and Chorley, which form one

Housing Market Area (HMA). A figure of 417 dwellings per annum (pa) is specified for South Ribble at part (a) of the Policy, and parts (b) to (d) relate to

review of housing delivery performance, and ensuring that a five year supply

and sufficient housing land is identified by site allocations. Related to this, the

Appellant’s evidence refers to Appendix D of the CS and Appendix 7 of the SRLP which set out the performance monitoring framework, specifically those

performance indicators which relate to the housing requirement. The

supporting text to Policy 4 of the CS explains that the housing figures stem from the now revoked 2008 Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). I note that the

evidence for those figures dates from several years earlier (2003).

10. Paragraph 73 of the Framework requires local planning authorities to identify

and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a

Page 108





minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set

out in adopted strategic policies, or against their local housing need where

those policies are more than five years old. There is no doubt that the strategic policies within the 2012 CS are more than five years old.

11. Footnote 37 to paragraph 73 gives the proviso ‘Unless these strategic policies

have been reviewed and found not to require updating’. The footnote also

clarifies that where local housing need is used as the basis for the assessment,

the standard method should be used for calculating the supply, as set out in national planning guidance.

12. A key point of dispute in this appeal relates to whether such a review of

strategic policies has taken place, and therefore whether the figure in Policy 4

of the CS should continue to be used to calculate the five year housing land

supply in the Borough. The Council’s evidence suggests that the standard method should now be used instead, at 206 dwellings pa (216 pa with the 5%

buffer confirmed by the Housing Delivery Test). South Ribble’s 2019 Housing

Land Position Statement (HLPS) gives both scenarios1.

13. The differences between the two methods of calculating the requirement, and

the main parties’ positions on the housing land supply is summarised in the

table below.

2012 Core Strategy

Policy 4

2019 Standard Method

Annual

Requirement

417 216

Appellant Council (2019

HLPS)

Appellant

Council (2019 HLPS)

Council (at start of

inquiry)

Deliverable

housing land

supply

3.24 years 5.96

years

N/A 18.5 years 17.8 years

14. In 2016-17 a joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment2 (SHMA) was

produced which identified an Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for the three

Central Lancashire authorities in the HMA. This totals of 1,184 dwellings pa, with 440 dwellings pa for South Ribble. The three authorities subsequently

published a Memorandum of Understanding3 (MOU) which set out that the CS

housing requirement figures in Policy 4 should be retained for a number of

reasons4. The dispute between the parties in relation to the housing

1 CD 6.1 – South Ribble Housing Land Position Statement 2019 2 CD 6.8 – Central Lancashire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (September 2017) 3 CD 6.9 – Joint Memorandum of Understanding and Statement of Co-operation relating to the provision of housing land (September 2017) 4 CD 6.9 MOU paragraph 5.10

Page 109




requirement principally revolves around whether the publication of the MOU in

2017 constituted a review for the purposes of footnote 37 to paragraph 73 of

the Framework.

15. Mrs Harding suggested that this could not constitute a review because there

was no public consultation on the 2017 MOU. The MOU is not a development plan policy document, and I am not aware of any guidelines for its production,

consultation and adoption. Even so, I would agree that consultation would be a

proportionate ingredient of a review, and that it would assist in ensuring that such a document is fit for purpose.

16. There is limited evidence before me to support this and Mrs Harding’s further

contention that the whole of Policy 4 was not reviewed; i.e. the SHMA only

relates to part (a) in relation to the figures. Nonetheless, it does provide me

with further doubt about whether the MOU and SHMA process leading up to it constituted a full review.

17. I acknowledge the Appellant’s reference to page 21 of the 2019 HLPS which,

when referring to the MOU, states ‘This could be considered to have been a

review of the policy in terms of footnote 37 of the NPPF’. To my mind the word

‘could’ also raises an element of doubt, and highlights that the situation is by

no means clear cut. Mr Pycroft asserted that whilst the MOU alone may not have been a review of CS Policy 4 it was the outcome of the production of the

SHMA, and the entire process constituted a review. I do not agree for the

following reasons.

18. The SHMA is not a review of policy but part of the evidence base for a future

review of the plan. I have regard to paragraph 1.2 of the SHMA which states: ‘The SHMA does not set housing targets. It provides an assessment of the need

for housing across the functional Housing Market Area (HMA), making no

judgements regarding future policy decisions which the Councils may take’.

19. Mr Pycroft’s evidence also refers to a 2016 report to the Central Lancashire

Strategic Planning Joint Advisory Committee5 (JAC). To my mind the paragraphs he refers to simply inform members of the JAC that the fifth

anniversary of the CS is approaching, and that Government guidance requires

plans and policies to be reviewed. On reading the report as a whole, it also informs members that the main purpose of the SHMA is to ensure the Councils

had a full objectively assessed need (FOAN) in accordance with paragraph 47

of the former 2012 Framework. This is also evident in a subsequent report to the JAC in March 20176 which sets out that the FOAN is an evidence figure, not

policy. Indeed, I note that CS Policy 4 is not specifically mentioned in either of

these reports and references to ‘review’ are in the context of a future review of

the CS7.

20. I have also had regard to the Brindle Road decision8 where the Inspector was not convinced that the MOU was a review, although I note the basis on which

these comments were made as highlighted by the Appellant. In view of the

above, and the inconclusive evidence supplied by the Council regarding lack of

5 Ben Pycroft Proof of Evidence paragraph 7.39-7.41 & Appx BP2-H : Report to Central Lancashire Strategic Planning Joint Advisory Committee 27 June 2016 – Paragraph 19 6 Ben Pycroft Appx BP2-I : Report to Central Lancashire Strategic Planning Joint Advisory Committee 2 March 2017 7 As above - Paragraphs 20 and 22 8 CD 7.11 – APP/F2360/W/18/3198822 Land off Brindle Road, Bamber Bridge, Preston PR5 6YP (paragraph 41)

Page 110




consultation and review of the whole policy, I do not consider that the SHMA

process constituted a review of Policy 4.

21. I acknowledge that both Preston and Chorley currently use the CS housing

requirement in decision making and in their most recent Housing Land Position

statements9. Whilst I do not have the benefit of direct evidence from Preston and Chorley Councils, I have had regard to the evidence produced by Mr

Pycroft and it seems to me that there are various other reasons, not solely

relating to the MOU, that they continue to use the CS figures and consider that a review of Policy 4 has taken place.

22. The Preston City Council press release10 does not specifically refer to the MOU,

instead it refers to the costs associated with defending two recent appeal

decisions in their area which concluded that Preston did not have a five year

supply of housing. I cannot make any conclusions on this as those decisions are not in the evidence before me. Preston’s latest housing land position

statement (HLPS)11 also refers to those appeal decisions (at paragraph 1.6),

and draws attention to the Preston Local Plan examination where it was agreed

that that there was no requirement to reconsider the Objectively Assessed Need. Mr Pycroft pointed out paragraph 1.9 of the HLPS12 in relation to the

MOU. However, to my mind this suggests uncertainty given the punctuation of

‘review’ (in single quotation marks).

23. Preston’s HLPS goes on to explain at paragraph 1.10 that its’ OAN resulting

from the SHMA is lower than the CS requirement, and it seems to me that this was a factor in the aforementioned appeal decisions. This contrasts to the

situation in South Ribble, where the OAN was calculated to be very similar (and

slightly higher) to the existing CS requirement.

24. Chorley’s 2019 housing supply statement also applies the CS requirement

figure but does not refer to the MOU in doing so. Mr Pycroft’s evidence13 in relation to a recent appeal (Carrington Road14) gives further explanation; their

reasoning for continuing to apply the CS requirement was that it was reviewed

as part of the examination of the Chorley Local Plan in 2015. I also have regard to a very recent Chorley planning committee report in relation to a

resubmission of a previously dismissed appeal at Pear Tree Lane15, where

Chorley set out their reasons as to why they consider CS Policy 4 is not out-of-

date.

25. It seems to me that the reasoning taken by Chorley and Preston for their use of the CS figure is specific to those Councils and does not necessarily directly

apply to the South Ribble situation. In view of this, I am not satisfied that the

evidence demonstrates that they are applying the CS figure for the reason that

the MOU (and SHMA process) constituted a review.

26. It has also been put to me by the Council that the 2017 MOU has been overtaken by events, i.e. a ‘significant change’ has taken place. Paragraph 33

9 Ben Pycroft Appx BP2-D : Preston Housing Land Position 2019; BP2-F Chorley Five Year Housing Supply Statement 2019; BP2-J Preston City Council press release 22.01.19; and Additional Document 11 – Chorley

Planning Committee Report 12 November 2019 10 Ben Pycroft Appx BP2-J : Preston City Council press release 22.01.19 11 Ben Pycroft Appx BP2-D : Preston Housing Land Position 2019 12 Ben Pycroft Proof of Evidence paras 7.28 and 7.30 13 Ben Pycroft Appx BP2-G : Chorley Council appeal statement Carrington Road APP/D2320/W/3228123 14 CD 7.19 Carrington Road APP/D2320/W/3228123 15 CD 7.21 Pear Tree Lane APP/D2320/W/17/3173275 and Additional Document 11

Page 111




of the Framework requires local authorities to update relevant strategic policies

at least once every five years if their applicable local housing need figure has

changed significantly. ‘Significantly’ is open to interpretation; and moreover the Framework does not specify whether such a change in the figure is positive or

negative.

27. Paragraph 062 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on plan making16 gives

guidance on review of policies, stating that where a review was undertaken

prior to publication of the Framework in 2018 but within the last 5 years, then that plan will continue to constitute the up-to-date plan policies unless there

have been significant changes in circumstances. There is a difference in

interpretation of the guidance between the main parties.

28. The 2017 MOU was produced prior to the publication of the 2018 Framework.

The PPG is not explicit in that it only refers to a significant change as being an existing figure that is significantly below the number generated using the

standard method. I agree with the Council that the wording of paragraph 062

does not necessarily discount a situation where the existing plan figure is

significantly above the number generated using the standard method, as is the case in South Ribble. This therefore adds little to the Appellants argument that

a review of the CS has taken place.

29. The 2017 MOU itself sets out review arrangements at section 7; no less than

every three years and when new evidence that renders the MOU out-of-date

has emerged. Such a review of the MOU is currently taking place. A 2019 Draft MOU17 relating to the provision and distribution of housing land has been

recently produced by the Central Lancashire authorities. This follows a Housing

Study18 which has informed a proposed interim position in advance of the adoption of the new Local Plan for Central Lancashire.

30. I was presented with a copy of a report to the Council’s cabinet19 at the start of

the inquiry which seeks approval for agreement to the new MOU. A short

consultation period had commenced on the MOU at the time of the inquiry and

it is understood that the responses would then be reported to Full Council. There was some discussion about the status of these documents and the

weight to be attached to them.

31. They are not policy documents and they are in draft form; therefore they do

not currently formally represent the interim position on housing requirements

for Central Lancashire. I note this stance has been recently taken by Preston City Council20. I also accept that the 2019 Housing Study does not consider a

review of the CS figures; it only considers the Standard Method calculation of

housing supply and a re-distribution between the three authorities.

32. It is necessary for the completion of consultation and a final version of the MOU

to be subsequently formally adopted by all three authorities before more certainty can be attached to its figures. It sets out a yearly requirement of 334

dwellings per annum (pa) for South Ribble. The Appellant has questioned the

16 Reference ID: 61-062-20190315 17 Additional Document 2 : Draft Memorandum of Understanding and Statement of Co-operation relating to the

provision and distribution of housing land (December 2019) 18 Additional Document 1 : Central Lancashire Housing Study by Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Chorley, Preston and South Ribble (October 2019) 19 Additional Document 3 : Report to Cabinet 13 November 2019 20 Late document 7 Emery Planning Statement on Revised MOU Appx 2: Preston City Council Planning Committee

meeting minutes 7 November 2019

Page 112




adequacy of the 2 week consultation. However, this is not a matter for this

Section 78 appeal to consider. Nonetheless these documents are a material

consideration.

33. I am mindful that if Preston and Chorley applied the standard method (not the

draft re-distributed figure) to their housing requirement now, Preston would be able to demonstrate a five year supply and Chorley would not. This

inconsistency in the way the three Central Lancashire Authorities are currently

making decisions relating to housing (together with with the age of the CS, current consultation on Issues and Options for a new Central Lancashire Local

Plan, and the introduction of the standard method) have plainly contributed to

current events where the three authorities are consulting on a revised MOU to

provide more clarity in decision making.

34. I am also conscious that my conclusions in respect of the housing supply requirement for South Ribble may have consequences for decision making by

the neighbouring authorities. Convincing arguments have been made by the

Appellants for retaining the current CS housing requirement in view of the

redistribution which may potentially result from this, but undue reliance seems to be placed on what the two other authorities are currently doing and how the

use of the Standard Method will affect them. This is a matter for their own

decision making and for the emerging Central Lancashire Local Plan in carrying out a full review of housing policies.

35. No matter what the outcome of the 2019 MOU consultation and timing for its

final publication, the figures contained within it and the distribution between

the authorities would be an interim position. The production of the new Central

Lancashire Local Plan is at an early stage with consultation on Issues and Options. It is for that review to fully consider the provision and distribution of

new homes in the area. Indeed the Issues and Options document states ‘it is

likely that the number of homes we must deliver for this plan period of 2021-

2036 will be different to our existing policy’ and confirms use of the standard housing method. It also clarifies that the three councils are still looking into the

number of homes needed and how they will be spread; ‘We will have more

information about this when we next consult with our communities’21.

36. The Housing Study, albeit not a final report, acknowledges in its introduction

that the previously agreed MOU needs to be revisited, and that a robust basis for working to agree an updated level of housing need and its distribution

across the HMA is required through an updated MOU. I do not make any

attempt to predicate the outcome of the final Housing Study and the current consultation on the draft 2019 MOU. However it is clear to me that the

direction of travel by all three authorities is towards the standard method and a

re-distribution of the housing requirement based on a range of factors including population, workforce and jobs distribution and constraints (including Green

Belt).

37. Having regard to paragraphs 33, 73 (and footnote 37) and 212-213 of the

NPPF, and the PPG paragraph 062, I conclude that the figure within Policy 4 of

417 dwellings per annum is out-of-date on several counts : i) the strategic policies are over 5 years old; ii) my conclusions that the 2017 MOU (and SHMA

leading up to it) did not properly constitute a review; and iii) the ‘significant

change’ resulting from the introduction of the standard method in the 2018

21 CD 5.1 Central Lancashire Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation November 2019 para’s 3.3-3.7

Page 113




Framework and the Council’s significantly lower figure arising from the

standard method calculation. Additionally, the MOU itself requires review by

September 2020; indeed a new version is currently undergoing consultation.

38. The Council no longer consider the 2012 CS figure of 417 pa to be a true

reflection of the Borough’s housing requirement. Conversely, the 216 dwellings pa arising from use of the standard method as put forward in the Council’s case

may not be a true reflection of their needs either, having regard to the

suggested re-distribution set out in the Housing Study and 2019 MOU. These are material considerations to which I give moderate weight.

39. Whilst I do not attempt to establish what the final yearly requirement figure for

South Ribble should be (216 or 334 or some other figure) - this is a matter for

the Central Lancashire authorities to agree in view of the draft status of the

new MOU – I conclude that the standard method of calculating local housing need should be used for the purposes of this appeal and this is set out further

in the sections below.

Housing Land Supply

40. I have previously highlighted the significant difference in the housing land

supply figure between the Council and the Appellant. Prior to the inquiry the

Council’s figure was 18.5 years, and the Appellant’s figure stood at 3.24 years.

This gulf in the supply largely results from the starting point of how the housing requirement should be calculated as set out above.

41. Differences also arise in relation to 13 allocated sites, and discounts to be

made in respect of whether they are deliverable in accordance with the

definition in Annex 2 of the Framework and guidance set out in the PPG

Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment. Additionally, there is dispute regarding calculation of the windfall allowance.

42. As I have already concluded that as CS Policy 4 is more than five years old and

has not been reviewed in South Ribble, the housing requirement should be

calculated against local housing need using the standard method. As such I do

not go any further in considering the housing land supply on the basis of the CS requirement.

43. A number of concessions were made by Mrs Harding at the inquiry in relation

to a lack of clear evidence on whether the 13 allocated sites are deliverable

within five years. Some of the discounts were significant, bringing the Council’s

original 18.5 year figure down accordingly. The parties agreed that evidence included beyond the base date (31st March 2019) should not be included; i.e.

the ‘strict approach’. I note that the appeal decisions supplied illustrate that

there is no one universally accepted approach in respect of accepting evidence

beyond the base date.

44. If I were to accept Mr Pycroft’s full set of discounts22, there would be a deliverable supply of 2,174 homes, resulting in the 5 year supply being just

over 10 years using the local housing need requirement. I note that progress

on sites such as the Test Track (Local Plan allocation FF)23 and others has been

made since the base date, and if there was a more marginal supply situation I may be persuaded to take the clear post-base date evidence into account.

22 Ben Pycroft Proof of Evidence para’s 11.47-11.48 23 Additional Documents 12 and 13 – Test Track decision notice and S.106

Page 114




45. Notwithstanding if I were to use the ‘strict approach’ to the base date only, the

supply would remain at well above five years using the local housing need

requirement figure of 216 dwellings pa. Any difference in calculations and evidence on windfall allowances would also make little difference to the supply

figure, which is not marginal, therefore I do not go any further into this matter.

46. I am mindful that the local housing need figure is currently being reviewed by

the three Central Lancashire authorities, as explained above, through the

Housing Study and a new MOU. The Council do not put forward this higher re-distributed figure of 334 dwellings pa, due to it currently being a draft figure.

Nonetheless, Mrs Harding agreed that the 216 pa figure she relies on does not

represent a ‘true reflection’ of South Ribble’s housing requirements. Indeed it is

a minimum, and I have regard to the Government’s aim to significantly boost housing supply as set out in paragraph 59 of the Framework.

47. Whilst I give the Housing Study and 2019 MOU limited weight given that

consultation has not been completed and the 2019 MOU is unlikely to be

formally adopted prior to my decision, for completeness I set out below what

the 5 year supply would be if the higher re-distributed figure of 334 pa were to be utilised, compared to the local housing need figure of 206 pa currently relied

on by the Council.

Requirement Local Housing

Need

Redistributed

Local Housing

Need (2019

MOU)

A Annual Requirement 206 334

B Past Shortfall at 31st March 2019 0 0

C Amount of past shortfall to be

addressed in the five year period

0 0

D Total five year requirement (A x 5

+ C)

1030 1670

E Requirement plus 5% buffer (D +

5%)

1082 1754

F Annual requirement plus buffer (E /

5 years)

216 347

Supply

G Five year supply 1st April 2019 to

31st March 2024

2174 2174

H Years supply (G/F)

10.06 years 6.27 years

Page 115




48. It is evident to me that whichever figure is used, the supply figure would be

well in excess of five years. Importantly, I have based this on the worst case

scenario – i.e. if I were to accept all the discounts suggested by Mr Pycroft, and if I take the ‘strict approach’ of excluding any evidence after the base date.

49. Consequently, on the basis of what I have heard I am satisfied that the Council

is currently able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land,

albeit that it would not be as high as originally calculated. The tilted balance is

therefore not engaged by virtue of a failure to demonstrate sufficient housing land provision.

Safeguarded Land

50. It is common ground that the appeal proposals are contrary to Policy G3 of the

SRLP. The Policy requires such land to remain safeguarded and not designated for any specific purpose within the plan period. After identifying 5 different

areas of safeguarded land in the Borough, including S3, it specifies that

existing uses will for the most part remain undisturbed during the plan period or until the plan is reviewed. Finally, it states that planning permission will not

be granted for development which could prejudice potential longer term

comprehensive development of land.

51. Paragraph 213 of the Framework indicates that due weight should be given to

policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. Paragraph 139(c) of the Framework states that where necessary development

plans should identify areas of safeguarded land between the urban area and

the Green Belt in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well

beyond the plan period. Paragraph 139(d) indicates that planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted

following an update to a plan which proposes the development.

52. I attach significant weight to Policy G3 in view of its consistency with the

Framework. The proposals are clearly in conflict with the first part of the Policy,

as the site forms part of S3 ‘South of Coote Lane, Chain House Lane, Farriington’. The first part of the final paragraph of the Policy confirms;

‘Existing uses will for the most part remain undisturbed during the Plan period

or until the Plan is reviewed’. The SRLP was adopted in 2015, and is well within its 15 year plan period.

53. There was some discussion at the inquiry about the wording ‘for the most part

remain undisturbed’. I do not accept the Appellant’s suggestion that as the site

is a only a small part of the overall site S3, its development would not be

harmful. I acknowledge that there is some flexibility in Policy G3 but do not accept the Appellant’s view that there is not an explicit requirement for the

land to remain as it is. Indeed ‘most part’ does not invite development of such

a scale that would be anything other than minor.

54. The supporting text to the Policy provides further commentary, and suggests at

paragraph 10.36 that the same types of development that would be generally acceptable in the Green Belt would be allowed: ‘… some appropriate minor

residential development adjacent to other properties would be considered’. It is

my view that this wording is aimed at minor infill development, and 100 dwellings would plainly not constitute this type of development. The proposals

would conflict with this particular element of Policy G3.

Page 116




55. Policy G3 does not mention a lack of five year housing land supply as one of

the circumstances in which the safeguarded land could be released for

development. Moreover, it does not specify the type of development that it is safeguarded for. The Council put to me that it does not automatically mean the

land would ultimately be used for housing, and suggest employment

(specifically office) uses as an alternative, or as open space, serving a purpose

as a ‘green lung’.

56. The point about potential employment land was raised in the Coote Lane decision24 in relation to another part of the same safeguarded site S3. Although

a relatively dated decision (2014) and prior to the adoption of the SRLP, Policy

G3 remains unchanged in the current Local Plan, and there is little evidence to

persuade me to deviate from that Inspector’s view.

57. I was presented with an update to the Central Lancashire Employment Study25 at the inquiry which suggests an additional need for employment land including

office space over and above the previous employment land study published in

2017. It is not site specific, and by no means suggests the appeal site or any

safeguarded land should be released for such use. However it lends some weight to the Council’s case in that if the site were to be released for

development whether as part of a Local Plan review or some other

circumstance, it does not necessarily follow that it would wholly be used for housing.

58. I concur with the Appellant that the appeal site is a relatively small part of the

larger S3 safeguarded land, and if such different uses were deemed

appropriate there is other land which could be utilised. Notwithstanding this, it

is not for this Section 78 appeal decision to determine what might be an appropriate alternative use, whether as employment, green space or some

other use.

59. The second part of the final paragraph of Policy G3 goes further in stating that;

‘Planning permission will not be granted for development which would prejudice

potential longer term, comprehensive development of the land’. This is the basis for the second reason for refusal.

60. In response to this reason for refusal the Appellant provided a joint illustrative

masterplan26, which followed their discussions with Homes England, the

landowners of the remainder of the part of S3 between Chain House Lane and

the railway line. I note that Homes England have withdrawn their objection to the proposals subject to conditions.

61. The Council and interested parties queried why planning permission was not

applied for in relation to the whole area of land to enable a comprehensive

scheme. However, any future plans for adjoining land are not part of the

appeal proposals before me.

62. The joint illustrative masterplan shows that vehicular and pedestrian/cycle links

could provide access to adjoining land. The condition suggested by Homes England seeks to ensure access to their land remains unfettered. Nonetheless,

24 CD 7.7 : APP/F2360/A/13/2202973 Coote Lane, Farington – Para. 18 25 Additional Document 14 : Central Lancashire Employment Land Study – Objectively Assessed Needs Update 2019 (April 2019) 26 Stephen Harris Proof of Evidence Appx SH1

Page 117




the plan is purely illustrative and has not been agreed by the Council nor been

subject to public consultation, nor does it include the entirety of S3.

63. I viewed the remaining part of S3 (Coote Lane) on my unaccompanied site visit

prior to the inquiry and I agree with the Appellant that Coote Lane and Chain

House Lane, separated by the railway line, are discrete parts of S3 which could be developed independently. This corresponds with the position taken by the

Inspector within the Examination Report into the SRLP in 201527. The sites are

both physically and visually severed by Church Lane and the railway line.

64. It would be a matter for the Council in relation to any future wider proposals

and/or Local Plan review whether to require a Masterplan for the entirety of S3. The Council have aspirations for stronger placemaking and effective

engagement with communities as required by paragraph 124 of the

Framework, and for seeking to ensure the opportunity to plan for future infrastructure needs. I note this point was raised in paragraph 48 of the

aforementioned Examination Report, where the Inspector stated ‘… one of the

benefits of promoting a comprehensive development of the larger allocated and

safeguarded sites is that they would provide the opportunity to plan to meet the need for essential infrastructure improvements. Piecemeal development of

smaller parcels of land within the overall site allocation is unlikely to provide

the same opportunity’.

65. I would agree with the Local Plan Inspector’s position in respect of the wider S3

safeguarded site which is of a significant scale. There is no evidence before me to suggest that 100 dwellings alone would warrant contributions to, for

example, local education provision and a nearby railway crossing at the present

time (or that such contributions would meet the tests in paragraph 56 of the Framework). Nonetheless in its entirety the development of the wider S3 site

could have implications for local infrastructure and services. In the interests of

effective placemaking and efficient infrastructure delivery, any identified

improvements may need to be funded and planned comprehensively and piecemeal development is unlikely to achieve this.

66. The Council’s aspiration to comprehensively plan for S3 in its entirety via an

agreed masterplan would meet the Government’s objectives to engage with

local communities and set out a clear design vision and expectations. They

have a proven track record of masterplan requirements for the major allocated development sites in the Borough (including allocation EE ‘Pickerings Farm’

opposite the site). A comprehensive masterplan can also aid in provision for

any necessary infrastructure improvements, open space and so on. Whilst the Appellant’s joint Masterplan is a useful illustrative plan to show how this part of

S3 may be developed comprehensively in the future in terms of access links, it

does not address these other important points of wider infrastructure provision and links within the wider area.

67. Another concern of the Council in relation to the lack of comprehensive

development relates to the location of the site distanced from the existing

urban area. They state that consideration should first be given to the part of S3

which is closest to the urban pattern rather than pockets of safeguarded land in isolation. The Appellant contends that the site is accessible to local services and

public transport, setting out a range of distances in the evidence.

27 CD 4.3 : Report on the Examination into the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies

Development Plan Document (June 2015) – para. 48

Page 118




68. The site is around 1.6km from Lostock Hall, which has a range of shops and

services and a railway station. Whist walking or cycling this distance may be

possible for some people, and the routes are relatively direct, I consider it unlikely that a good proportion of future residents of the site would do so. On

this point, I have had regard to the comments from interested parties who

raised issues regarding the narrow roads and inadequate footways, the slope of

the railway bridges and feeling unsafe when cycling which adds weight to this view.

69. There is a bus stop alongside the site with hourly services to Preston and

Chorley. Interested parties told me that these services are not useful to them

as they do not go to more local destinations and finish too early. Nonetheless a

bus service to larger conurbations exists and I acknowledge the Section 106 Agreement which provides for a contribution towards the bus service and cycle

parking enhancements at Lostock Hall railway station - these are positive

benefits of the proposals. Such factors do not however outweigh my concerns regarding piecemeal development and the location of the site distant from the

edge of the existing urban area.

70. I agree with the Council that the Coote Lane section of S3 is better related to

the existing urban edge than the appeal site. An overall Masterplan for S3 in its

entirety would assist in appropriate phasing so that land closest to the existing settlements could be developed first.

71. Development of the appeal site in isolation, in advance of the remainder of

adjoining and nearby land forming S3 would result in harm in this respect. In

coming to this conclusion I have had regard to the existing ribbon development

along Chain House Lane, and acknowledge that over time the area will become more built up once development commences on the Pickerings Farm allocated

site opposite commences. Nonetheless, the development of the appeal site

alone would represent a disconnected pocket of housing in this otherwise

currently undeveloped area.

72. I acknowledge that, with the suggested conditions28, the development of the site would not preclude highway and pedestrian/cycle links to adjoining land

and in this respect would not prejudice these technical aspects of longer term,

comprehensive development of the land (whether for housing or other uses).

However, it would not establish a strong sense of place nor optimise the site’s potential to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of

development and support local facilities and transport networks, contrary to

section 12 of the Framework in achieving well-designed places. It also fails to represent effective community engagement, and to take the opportunities

available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it

functions.

73. Appeal decisions have been put to me relating to safeguarded land both in the

Central Lancashire area and elsewhere. However, none of them are directly comparable in terms of the housing land supply coupled with the current local

and national policy situation. In those cases relating to the Leeds Unitary

Development Plan29, the plan period had ended with no up to date adopted development plan being in place, together with a shortfall of housing land

28 Catherine Lewis Proof of Evidence and Additional Document 16 – Revised condition 19 29 CD 7.1, 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5

Page 119




rendering the ‘protected area of search’ policy out-of-date and I therefore find

them of little relevance to this appeal.

74. The proposed development would be contrary to Policy G3 of the 2015 SRLP

both in regard to its requirement to ensure existing uses for the most part

remain undisturbed during the Plan period (or until the Plan is reviewed), and in terms of prejudice to potential longer term, comprehensive development of

safeguarded land within which the appeal site is located. In turn the proposals

are also contrary to paragraph 139 and section 12 of the Framework. I do not consider that this harm could be overcome by the suggested conditions or the

Section 106 Agreement.

Other Matters

75. I heard evidence from several interested parties at the inquiry, including ‘Say

No to Chain House Lane’, and I have also carefully considered the numerous

written representations submitted during the planning application process and

for the appeal. Issues raised relate primarily to impact on area character and appearance, highway safety and traffic issues, drainage and flooding, trees,

wildlife, pollution, and lack of local infrastructure and services. The appellant’s

evidence sets out how such issues have been considered in the proposals, and

proposes mitigation via planning conditions and a Section 106 Agreement. Whilst I have had regard to the matters referred to, they do not give rise to

harm which weighs significantly against the proposals.

76. I note that the statutory authorities and other consultees have not raised

objections, including Lancashire County Council as the local highway authority

Should outline permission be granted such matters could be resolved at reserved matters stage, and by imposition of appropriate conditions and

Highway Agreements.

77. The Council clarified in evidence that the second reason for refusal in its

suggestion of ‘prejudice’ relates to Policy G3 and comprehensive development

of the wider area of safeguarded land only. This is quite separate to the prematurity point set out in paragraph 49 of the Framework in terms of

undermining the plan-making process. There is no harm to the emerging

review of the Central Lancashire Local Plan.

78. The City Deal30 is frequently referred to by the Appellants relating to aims to

boost the housing supply in the area. However, the City Deal is not part of the Development Plan; rather it assists in supporting investment into infrastructure

delivery programme for Preston, South Ribble and Lancashire. It has ambitious

targets for housing delivery, related to employment and infrastructure delivery. Whilst it is briefly referred to in the SRLP foreword, I give it limited weight

given that it is not embodied in policy and is currently undergoing a mid-term

review which raises some uncertainty over its continuation.

79. The evidence of Mr Harris highlights that CS Policy 4 allows for a series of

‘contingency options’ identified in the performance monitoring framework31 should there be a shortfall in housing delivery. Likewise, there are contingency

actions set out within the SRLP32 in the event that a shortfall arises. Mr Harris

suggests that releasing safeguarded sites is the only method of addressing a

30 Ben Pycroft Proof of Evidence Appx BP2-K - City Deal : Business and Delivery Plan 2017/20 31 Central Lancashire Core Strategy Appendix D 32 South Ribble Local Plan Appendix 7

Page 120




shortfall in supply; that it is a logical approach to providing much needed

housing and the options set out in the performance monitoring frameworks in

both plans would not assist.

80. I do not agree with this stance. There is no provision in the development plan

for releasing safeguarded land as a contingency action. It is not an ‘appropriate management action’ as set out in part (b) of Policy 4. Reading the development

plan as a whole, such an action would be contrary to its own policy in relation

to safeguarded land. Policy G3 is implicit in that land should remain safeguarded during the plan period or until the plan is reviewed; it does not

cite a shortfall in housing supply either within the policy or supporting text.

81. Whether the Council is sufficiently monitoring their plan and taking any of the

contingency actions set out in the performance monitoring framework is a

matter which is not one for me to deliberate on in this Section 78 appeal. In any case I have already concluded that the Council can demonstrate a five year

housing supply.

82. The parties in this appeal have referred to numerous appeal decisions which

have been provided to support their respective cases. Whilst I have had due

regard to them, appeal decisions on other sites rarely bring identical policies

and material considerations. None of the appeal decisions brought to my attention have had a determinative influence on my consideration of the appeal

case.

83. I have had regard to the list of agreed conditions and the Section 106

Agreement which makes provision for 30% affordable housing and on-site

public open space, and contributions to off-site play space, mobile speed indicator devices, cycle lockers at a local railway station, and travel plan

monitoring. I am satisfied that the agreement would accord with the tests set

out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations and have had regard to its’ provisions in the consideration of this appeal however the S.106 and

conditions do not alter my conclusions in respect of this appeal.

Planning Balance and Conclusion

84. I have identified conflict with Policy G3 of SRLP. Together with Policy 4 of the

CLCS, these two policies within the development plan are the most important

for determining the appeal. I now assess whether they should be considered to

be out-of-date for the purposes of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework.

85. Policy 4 is contained within a plan which is more than five years old, but this strategic policy is not out-of-date simply because of its age. I conclude that it is

out-of-date due to the significant change identified above; the publication of

the Framework in 2018 which introduced at the standard method, and the

significant difference in the housing requirement generated by that calculation for local housing need.

86. It is common ground between the parties that the appeal proposals are

contrary to Policy G3 and that it is compliant with paragraph 139 of the

Framework, however evidence differs as to whether it is out-of-date for the

purposes of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework. I have concluded that the Council can demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites by

virtue of use of the standard method for the housing requirement, therefore

Policy G3 is not rendered out-of-date for that reason.

Page 121




87. There was some discussion at the inquiry as to whether Policy G3 would be

out-of-date for other reasons. I do not agree with the premise that Policy G3

becomes out-of-date purely because of the distributional consequences that would arise across the Central Lancashire HMA as a whole if all three

authorities were to apply the standard method. Such a situation is not one

which is referred to in the Framework or PPG as rendering this type of policy

out-of-date.

88. Moreover, whilst I have given limited weight to the Housing Study and the 2019 draft MOU, the re-distribution which is suggested within the documents is

not ‘radical’ as suggested by Mr Fraser. I note that the re-distribution

recommended in the Housing Study is based on a reasonable set of criteria

including jobs, population, and affordability as well as Green Belt constraints. The recommended share of the housing requirement33 of 27.5% for Chorley,

40% for Preston and 32.5% for South Ribble is not significantly different from

the current CS distribution of 31.1 %, 37.8% and 31.1% respectively. Distributional consequences do not weigh heavily in giving me reason to

conclude that the policy is out-of-date.

89. This is a small basket of policies for determination of the appeal, nonetheless

Policy G3 prevails as the most important, indeed it is the only policy specified

in the reasons for refusal relating to the main issues. Taken as a whole, there is conflict with the development plan.

90. Consequently, this is a case in which the tilted balance is not engaged. The

most important development plan policy is not out-of-date and the Council is

able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land.

91. I therefore carry out a standard planning balance in relation to the

development proposals before me, with the starting point arising from Section

38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the

development plan, unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise.

92. The proposals would assist in the Government’s objective of significantly

boosting the supply of new homes and as the Appellant is a housebuilder and

there are relatively few physical site constraints, they could come forward without unnecessary delay. Another social benefit which weighs in favour of the

development is the provision of 30% affordable housing.

93. Economic benefits include employment during construction, additional spending

in the area by the new residents, the payment of New Homes Bonus and

additional Council Tax revenue. Social and environmental benefits would arise from the provision of public and private amenity space as well as additional

landscaping.

94. Public transport and cycle parking contributions are included in the S.106, and

conditions require off-site highway improvements. Whilst these may benefit the

wider area they are nonetheless necessary to mitigate the increase in traffic arising from the development. Therefore I give little weight to these factors in

the overall balance.

33 Central Lancashire Housing Study by Iceni Projects Ltd (October 2019) - Table 4.12 page 24.

Page 122




95. The majority of these benefits are generic and no more than would be expected

from any major housing development, and as such they attract limited positive

weight. The benefits do not address the fundamental issue of the site’s location within safeguarded land and the harm which would result from the prejudice to

potential longer term comprehensive development of the land. Taken together

they would not outweigh the conflict with the development plan when taken as

a whole.

96. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Page 123




APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr Alan Evans

He called:

Mrs Zoe Harding AssocRTPI

Mrs Catherine Lewis MRTPI

of Counsel instructed by David Whelan, Solicitor for South Ribble Borough Council

Planning Policy Officer, South Ribble Borough

Council

Team Leader, South Ribble Borough Council

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Vincent Fraser QC

He called:

Mr Ben Pycroft BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI

Mr Stephen Harris BSc (Hons)

MRTPI

Instructed by Wainhomes (North West) Ltd

Director, Emery Planning

Director, Emery Planning

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Jean Berry Local Resident and ‘Say No to Chain House Lane’

Elaine Robb Farrington Parish Councillor and local resident

Cllr Karen Walton South Ribble Borough Councillor and local resident Alan Pemberton Local resident

Michael Collison Local resident

David Beaumont Local resident

Page 124




ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS

1 Central Lancashire Housing Study by Iceni (October 2019)

2 Central Lancashire Local Plan Draft Memorandum of

Understanding (December 2019)

3 South Ribble Borough Council Cabinet Report 13 November 2019

4 Minutes of South Ribble Borough Council Full Council 25 September 2019 – City Deal Update

5 Minutes of Central Lancashire Strategic Planning Joint Advisory Committee 28

October 2019

6 Update Note by South Ribble Borough Council

7 Statement by Appellant on Revised MoU

8 Erratum to Zoe Harding’s Proof of Evidence

9 Zoe Harding / Ben Pycroft email 3 October 2019

10 Discounts summary table

11 Chorley Planning Committee Report 12 November 2019 – 19/00654/OUTMAJ

– Pear Tree Lane, Euxton

12 Decision notice 7 November 2019 – 07/2017/3361/ORM – Test Track, Aston

Way, Leyland

13 Section 106 Agreement 7 November 2019 - 07/2017/3361/ORM – Test Track, Aston Way, Leyland

14 Central Lancashire Employment Land Study – Objectively Assessed Needs

Update 2019

15 Photographs submitted by Jean Berry on behalf of local residents to show traffic

16 Revised condition 19 (Homes England access condition)

17 South Ribble Borough Council Closing Submissions

18 Appellant’s Closing Submissions

19 Completed Section 106 Agreement dated 15 November 2019

Page 125


Application Number 07/2018/9316/OUT

Address Land Rear Of OakdeneChain House LaneWhitestakeLancashire

Applicant Wainhomes (North West) Ltd

Agent Mr Stephen HarrisUnits 2-4 South Park CourtHobson StreetMacclesfield SK11 8BS

Development Outline Permission for up to 100 dwellings with access and associated works

Officer RecommendationOfficer Name

Refusal Mrs Catherine Lewis

Validation Date 02.01.2019 Target Determination Date 03.04.2019 Extension of Time 27.06.2019

Page 127

1. Summary

1.1. The application seeks outline planning permission with only the matter of access and associated works applied for, for the construction of 100 dwellings (30% of which would be affordable housing) on a site measuring 3.6 hectares. The site comprises agricultural land and is located to the south of Chain House Lane, Whitestake.

1.2. The application site is designated by Policy G3 as Safeguarded Land in the South Ribble Local Plan 2015 and is specifically referenced as S3 South of Coote Lane, Chain House Lane, Farington.

1.3. The main issue associated with the site is whether the proposal would amount to a sustainable form of development with reference to housing supply and the comprehensive development of the area. It is the applicant’s view that as the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 Year housing supply and the site should be brought forward for housing. The Council maintains that it can demonstrate a 5 year housing supply and therefore the application should be determined in line with the Development Plan policies and any other material considerations. Whilst concerns have been raised by third parties about the ability of the local highway network to cope with the additional traffic, together with concerns about ecology, drainage, noise and air pollution, there are no formal objections raised from any of the statutory consultees.

1.4. The site forms part of a parcel of land allocated as Safeguarded by Policy G3 of the SRBC and on that basis the principle of the development is not supported as the land is safeguarded. Furthermore, the piecemeal development of part of the site would not constitute sustainable development and would cause harm to the possible comprehensive development of the area. It is concluded on balance, that there are no other materials considerations to outweigh the harm identified by granting planning permission. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

2. Site and Surrounding Area 2.1. The application site is located approximately 1.3km to the west of Lostock Hall and 5km south of the centre of Preston. Measuring 3.6hectares, the site is bordered by Chain House Lane to the north, Church Lane to the east and agricultural land to the south and west.

2.2 The site comprises of three fields that are separated by hedges and ditches and the fields are currently used for grazing. A railway embankment is adjacent to the southern boundary. The south, west and eastern boundaries of the property known as Oak Dene abut the application site and the property known as The Bungalow abuts part of the west boundary.

2.3 Access to the site is taken from Chain House Lane which is subject to a 40mph speed limit. To the north of Chain House Lane is safeguarded land with Pickering’s Farm located further north. The site is generally level with a slight fall in a southerly direction.

2.4 The application site is specifically referenced as S3 South of Coote Lane, Chain House Lane Farington as part of the lad designated as subject to Policy G3 Safeguarded Land of the South Ribble Local Plan.

Page 128

3. Planning History 3.1 None to report 4. Proposal 4.1 The application seeks outline planning permission, with only the matter of Access applied for, for the erection of up to 100 dwellings (30% of which would be affordable housing). 4.2 As the matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are not being applied for within this application the submitted layout plan is only for indicative purposes at this stage.

4.3 Access to the site is proposed off Chain House Lane which would be located approximately 160 metres from the main junction known as A582 Penwortham Way /Chain House Lane. The scheme details include a reduction from 40mph to 30mph from this junction through to the existing 30mph reduction on Coote Lane.

4.4 Vehicular access to the application site would be provided through the introduction of a priority-controlled T- junction onto Chain House Lane.

4.5 In April 2019 further information was submitted which related to the following:

An amended indicative housing layout address concerns raised by the owners (Homes England) of the future development of the neighbouring land.

A revised Transport Assessment has also been submitted to address comments made by LCC Highways. These amendments include clarification about the 2m footway on Church Lane, upgrade of the Bus Stops on Church Lane, and the submission of a Travel Plan to support the application.

5. Summary of Supporting Documents 5.1. The application is supported by a number of drawings and the following documents which is listed below:

Illustrative Masterplan Layout Plan ref 1638/WHD/CHL/SKO1/by DGL Associates Ecology Survey and Assessment (October 20180 by ERAP Access Arrangements Plan ref: SCP/18355/FO1 by SCP Tree Survey Report by Trevor Bridge Phase 1 Geo Environmental Desk Study report be REFA (Ref:18119 Transport Impact Assessment prepared by SCP (October 2018) Planning, Design and Access Statement Ref 18-294

Additional Information was submitted in April 2019

Revised illustrative Masterplan by DGL Associates Revised Transport Assessment and Travel Plan dated April 2019 ref: SCP/18355/TA/01 Flood Risk assessment by Iron Farrar. Addendum to Planning, Design and Access Statement

Page 129

6. Summary of Neighbour Consultation

6.1 In January properties were consulted and several site notices were posted together with an advert in the newspaper.

6.2 Following receipt of additional information a further consultation exercise was undertaken including 111 properties being consulted and site notices posted. In total 77 letters of objection have been received with some being duplicate due to the revisions in response to the proposed development.A petition signed by 38 residents has also been submitted objecting to the proposal.

These consultation exercises raised the following issues which are summarised below:

Policy

There is a need to protect the Green Belt and no further development should take place. Too much development taking place with Pickering’s Farm already included for

development. Development would be contrary to the designation of Safeguarded land in the local plan.

Character The proposed dwellings are not in keeping with the area The development would destroy a pleasant walking area. The view from Farington Lodges would be spoiled by the proposed development Green space is being eaten away by speculative development Currently very little light pollution and wild life would be affected by the urbanisation of the

area. The housing density is not in keeping with the local vernacular of low density detached

houses/bungalows/dormer bungalows.

Highway Issues

Increase in cars and congestion already busy road Lack of footpaths to make the site sustainable Impact on Lostock Hall as vehicles try to exit Coote Lane at the Brownedge Junction Weight restriction on Railway bridge on Coote Lane and Church Lane Welch Fencing based opposite the site has HGV’s reversing on to Chain House Lane

due to limited access to their site which would to traffic issues due to the increased traffic from the development.

No public transport in the area. Impact of further queuing at the junction with Penwortham Way. The proposed entry/exit would be located in a dangerous place. Church Lane is busy with a 20/30mph zone but is not policed, would this lead to traffic

lights at key junctions.

Drainage Surface water problems will be made worse by the proposed increase across the site. The outline application details provide for the surface water to be drained to Mill Brook.

Concern is raised about the need to protect properties downstream of the proposed development.

Page 130

Trees and Wildlife Ecology at risk as the wildlife depend upon this environment will be lost Owls and bats regularly seen hunting in the fields

Other Issues

Pollution and noise due to the increase in the development. South Ribble recently won the accolade of being the Best place to Live in the UK and

the government are making mistakes in requiring more housing. The impact of more housing on green fields will have a negative impact on this accolade.

Loss of view and devalue of property Need to reuse existing properties within Preston and Leyland before building on greed

fields. No local shops at Whitestake No schools or health provision within the area. Should develop the failed IKEA site for housing Although electric vehicle recharge points are to be provided and do not emit exhaust

fumes they do omit tiny particles from brake and tyre dust adding to Air quality issues. What will happen to the local dairy business that currently use the land to graze cows.

Loss of precious farmland will continue if more housing is constructed.

6.3 A letter has been received which provides a link to a web page which advises that there are 894 people objecting to the proposed plan. The same letter provides a written petition of 38 signatures objecting to the proposed application and the letter details a number of concerns which are summarised below:

The Transport Assessment fails to demonstrate in detail the existing situation Some of the information in the TA is incorrect including the Traffic Survey and there is

concern that the assessment is not a reflection of the of the vehicle movements for the area.

Concern that the Assessment only records 2 slight accidents when searches suggest that there are a lot more.

The site is not sustainable and concern is raised about information contained in the Sustainable Transport Appraisal.

The PROW do not provide the level of connectivity as set out in the Transport Assessment- they are blocked and are not suitable for all modes of transport.

The proposed development shows imaginary access to land not in the ownership of the applicant.

Concern the area is becoming urbanised What happens if here is a power cut for the provision of the electric cars Concern is raised about flooding and drainage across the site with photos included. Concern is raised about Air Pollution and the increased level of development.

6.4 Home England (HE) has sent in a letter of representation (31.01.2019) which advised that HE is the Governments housing accelerator. Home England own the majority of the remaining safeguarded land in site S3 which equates to 11 hectares of land surrounding the application site. HE would welcome discussions with the applicant and South Ribble to formulate a comprehensive masterplan for Site S3. Such an approach would ensure that the potential longer-term comprehensive development of the land is not prejudiced.

6.5 A further letter from Avison Young acting on behalf of Taylor Wimpey and Homes England was received dated 5 February 2019 which is summarized below:

Page 131

Principle of development as the site is allocated as Safeguarded Land under Policy G3 any approval would be classed as piecemeal development. The site should be master planned comprehensively as an extension to the land to the north (Sites EE and S2).

A number of appeal decisions exist in which the Inspector dismisses the appeal for development on safeguarded land and therefore there is clear precedent for the refusal of applications.

LCC highways raise concerns that the proposals do not encourage sustainable modes of transport.

The submitted indicative road layout does not allow for sufficient connections to future adjacent developments.

Has the submitted TA considered the committed schemes for example the Lanes former Pickering’s Farm development?

The application is not supported by a Landscape Impact Assessment or Flood Risk Assessment has not been submitted with the application.

6.6 HE has sent a further letter of representation dated 07.06.2019 which raises the following points: The land that HE owns within S3 was submitted through the Central Lancashire Local

Plan Call for Sites in November 2018. HE intends to work with South Ribble on a comprehensive masterplan for all of the land

which is safeguarded at site S3. Whilst HE has agreed in principle to an amended access arrangement and the illustrative

Masterplan dated 26 April 2019, HE require conditions to ensure that their land can be delivered to its appropriate housing capacity.

6.7 Farington Parish Council- Object to the proposal on the following grounds:

The proposal would be out of keeping with the character of the area, and not suitable for a semirural/rural area.

Concern is raised about the proposed entry/exit opposite the proposed Pickering’s Farm site.

Lack of suitable infrastructure in the area Traffic congestion on Chain House Lane Air quality is poor and the area is prone to flooding

7. Summary of Statutory Consultations 7.1 Comments received from Statutory Consultees are summarised below: 7.2 Lancashire County Council Highways (LHA) –have raised no objection. In their original response a number of concerns were highlighted which are set out below:

1. A drawing indicating a 2m footway along the sites full frontage of Chain House Land and Church Lane linking the site with the existing bus stops and the wider footway network.2. Upgrading of the bus stops on church Lane to Quality Bus standard to be EA compliant.3. The submission of an interim travel Plan4. A drawing showing the proposed 30mph speed extension along chain house Lane and proposed mitigation measures to support the reduction5. Reviewed trip rates6. Reviewed Trip distribution7. Section 106 contribution towards cycle parking enhancements at Lostock Hall train station8. Section 106 contribution provided to support bus services

Page 132

9. Revised drawing showing acceptable sightlines overland fully within the applicants control and or over the adopted highway.

• Further information was submitted in April 2019 which sought to address the concerns raised. However, LCC highways advised that there were still concerns with regard to point 1 and point 8. A further plan Ref SCp/18355/F02 Rev A was submitted on 7 May 2019 and LCC Highways have confirmed that the amended plan is acceptable and that the applicant is willing to support the request for the public transport contribution.

7.3 Lancashire County Council Education –has advised that an education contribution is not required at this stage in regard to this development.

7.4 Ecology (GMEU) – has raised no objection. In summary no significant ecological issues were identified within the submitted information. Issues relating to nesting birds can be controlled via conditions. However more detail is required on the level of mitigation for the loss of over 3ha of low value ecological habitats. The illustrative site layout is not supported because of inadequate on site mitigation this aspect can be addressed through a condition.

7.5 South Ribble Borough Council Arboriculturist – No objections to the development Conditions controlling trees to be protected, and a method statement if development enters into the root protection area. A landscape plan to be submitted detailing new tree planting numbers species size which should include broadleaf deciduous upright trees.

7.6 United Utilities - Have raised no objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions relating to foul and surface water drainage details. The water mains would need extending and the applicant may be required to pay a contribution. A foul water sewer, a critical surface water sewer, and a water main crosses the site which may have implications for any detailed layout. 7.7 Lead Local Flood Authority (Lancashire County Council) – Have no objections to the scheme subject to the inclusion of several conditions to manage the risk of flooding. 7.8 Environment Agency Have no comment to make upon the application.

7.9 South Ribble Borough Council Environmental Health (EHO)- The EHO has suggested a number of conditions no burning, dust management plan, wheel wash facilitates, control of the storage compound and site cabins, hours of construction, piling activities, control of invasive weeds and electric vehicle recharging points. 7.10 South Ribble Borough Council Strategic Housing –The application details provide for up to 100 dwellings with 30% affordable housing to be provided on site meeting the targets set out in Policy 7 of the CLCS. The borough has a need for smaller affordable units including one and two bedroomed flats/apartments and two- and three-bedroom houses. Population projections highlight an aging population for South Ribble provision to meet the needs of this group would be welcomed as housing for older people has been identified as a priority.

7.11 NHS Chorley and South Ribble Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) - The two nearest practices to Chain House Lane – New Longton Surgery and Lostock Hall have very little capacity, if any developer contributions can be made (however small) to either practice it may help them – for example to reconfigure a room to create extra capacity or to support with equipment etc.

Page 133

7.12 Network Rail – Raise concerns about the impact of the proposed development upon the railway crossing known as Lodge Lane Level Crossing. Any proposed development near to the crossing must be accompanied by an assessment to appraise the impact on the crossing and include any necessary mitigation as part of the planning process. Further information has been submitted but Network Rail still have concerns and have requested to meet with the developer.

The developer has agreed but does not wish this meeting to hold up the application process. Network Rail have not confirmed at the time of writing the report whether they are formally objecting to the development and a further update will be provided at the meeting.

7.13 Crime Prevention Officer (Lancashire Constabulary) – Has no objections to the scheme but makes recommendations that the development is designed and constructed to Secure by Design “Homes 2016” in relation to security and minimising the risk of crime. Further, the site would need to be secured throughout the construction phase to address security issues and theft. 8. Policy Background 8.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - sets out the Government’s economic, environmental and social planning policies for England. At the heart of the planning system is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Chapter 2: Achieving Sustainable Development states that ‘at the heart of the framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development’. The NPPF supports sustainable economic growth to deliver, amongst other things, homes. Paragraph 11 states “Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development”.

Chapter 4: Decision Making states that Local Authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area.

Chapter 5: Delivering a sufficient supply of homes – a sufficient amount and variety of land to come forward where it is needed. Land with permission should be developed without unnecessary delay. Where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, decisions should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership (as part of the overall affordable housing contribution from the site). Within this context, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different community groups - including older people, must be taken into account. Chapter 5 also details its requirements for affordable housing provision.

Chapter 8 Promoting healthy and safe communities: Planning decisions should aim to create healthy, inclusive and safe places to promote social interaction, are safe and accessible. The need to plan positively for the provision of shared spaces and community facilities to enhance residential environments is encouraged.

Chapter 9 Promoting sustainable transport: The Planning system should actively manage patterns of growth to support the objectives of sustainable transport. Paragraph 108 sets out criteria to consider the impact of development proposals. Criterion (b) requires a safe and suitable access to the site to be achieved for all users. With Paragraph 110 requiring development to create places that are safe, secure and attractive.

Page 134

Planning decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively within existing businesses and community facilities (paragraph 182).

Chapter 11: Making effective use of land: Decisions should promote effective use of land and paragraph 118 criterion (c) states substantial weight should be given to the value of using brown field land within settlements for homes and other identified needs. There is a specific section about achieving appropriate densities. Within paragraph 123 criterion (c) encourages a range of densities that reflect the accessibility and potential of different areas rather than one broad density.

Chapter 12: Achieving well-designed places - Paragraph 124 “Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development”. Developments should add to the overall quality of the area, establish a strong sense of place, optimise the potential of the site, by creating and sustaining an appropriate mix of uses, and create safe, accessible environments which are visually attractive.

Chapter 14: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change - Paragraph 148 makes clear that the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate should be supported through the planning system. When determining planning applications local planning authorises should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere.

Chapter 15: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment (Paragraph 170). There is a need to minimise impacts on and provide net gains for biodiversity. Ground conditions and contamination issues need to be fully assessed but where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer/ and or landowner (Para 179). New development needs to be appropriate to its location and have regard to potential pollution on health (Para 180).

8.2 Both the Central Lancashire Core Strategy, which was adopted July 2012, and the South Ribble Local Plan (adopted 2015), were adopted post the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) being issued. Both had to demonstrate at examination compliance with the NPPF and are therefore considered to be fully NPPF compliant. 8.3 Central Lancashire Core Strategy (adopted July 2012) Policy 1: Locating Growth focuses growth and investment on brownfield sites in the

main urban areas, and the Strategic Sites, whilst protecting the character of suburban and rural areas.

Policy 3: Travel seeks to reduce the need to travel, manage car use, promote more sustainable modes of transport and improve the road network.

Policy 4: Housing Delivery provides for and manages the delivery of new housing. For South Ribble this amounts to 417 dwellings per annum.

Policy 5: Housing Density seeks to secure housing densities which are in keeping with the local areas and which will have no detrimental impact on the amenity, character, appearance, distinctiveness and environmental quality of an area.

Page 135

Policy 6: Housing Quality seeks to improve the quality of housing by facilitating the greater provision of accessible housing and neighbourhoods and use of higher standards of construction.

Policy 7: Affordable Housing seeks to ensure sufficient provision of affordable and special housing to meet needs.

Policy 9 Employment seeks to ensure economic growth and employment is delivered through a number of measures.

Policy 17: Design of New Buildings expects the design of new buildings to take account of the character and appearance of the local area; be sympathetic to surrounding land uses and occupiers; ensure that the amenities of occupiers of the new development will not be adversely affected by neighbouring uses and vice versa; minimise opportunity for crime; provide landscaping as an integral part of the development, protecting existing landscape features and natural assets, habitat creation, provide open space and enhance the public realm; be adaptable to climate change and adopt the principles of sustainable construction including sustainable drainage systems and ensure that contaminated land is addressed through appropriate remediation and mitigation measures.

Policy 22: Biodiversity & Geodiversity aims to conserve, protect and seek opportunities to enhance and manage the biological and geological assets of the area

Policy 26: Crime and Community Safety plans for reduced levels of crime and improved community safety, including the inclusion of Secured by Design principles in new developments.

Policy 27: Sustainable Resources and New Developments seeks to ensure sustainable resources are incorporated into new development.

Policy 29: Water Management aims to improve water quality, water management and reduce the risk of flooding through a number of measures, including encouraging the adoption of Sustainable Drainage Systems.

Policy 30: Air Quality aims to improve air quality through the delivery of Green Infrastructure initiatives and through taking account of air quality when prioritising

measures to reduce road traffic congestion.

Policy MP states that Councils will take a proactive approach which reflects the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development, and that applications which accord with the policies of the Local Plan will be approved without delay unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.4 South Ribble Local Plan (adopted July 2015)

Policy A1: Developer Contributions expects new development to contribute to mitigating its impact on infrastructure, services and the environment and to contribute to the requirements of the community.

Policy G8 Green Infrastructure (provision in new developments): Developments should provide appropriate Green Infrastructure and landscaping including green corridors to join up the Borough’s green and built up areas.

Page 136

Policy F1: Parking Standards requires all development proposals to provide car parking and servicing space in accordance with parking standards adopted by the Council.

Policy G10: Green Infrastructure states that all new residential development resulting in a net gain of 5 dwellings must provide sufficient green infrastructure to meet the recreational needs of the development, in accordance with specific but flexible standards.

Policy G13: Trees, Woodlands and Development states that development will not be permitted where it affects protected trees and woodland unless justified. Where loss of the same is unavoidable, this policy accepts suitable mitigation.

Policy G16: Biodiversity and Nature Conservation protects, conserves and enhances the natural environment at a level commensurate with the site’s importance and the contribution it makes to wider ecological networks.

Policy G17: Design Criteria for New Development considers design in general terms, and impact of the development upon highway safety, the extended locale and the natural environment.

Chapter J: Tackling Climate Change looks to reduce energy use and carbon dioxide emissions in new developments; encouraging the use of renewable energy sources.

8.5 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) Central Lancashire Design Guide SPD provides an overview of the design principles that are employed throughout the three Central Lancashire authorities. It draws on key policy and good-practice guidance in order to raise the level and quality of design of new buildings in the built environment.

Central Lancashire Affordable Housing SPD gives guidance on a range of approaches to deliver affordable housing which meets local needs.

Central Lancashire Open Space and Playing Pitch SPD advises on provision and retention of open space in existing and proposed developments.

Central Lancashire Employment Skills SPD – this document was adopted in September 2017 and as such carries considerable weight in planning decisions. The SPD has been driven by the Council’s aspiration to see additional benefits (social value) incorporated into development opportunities; ‘social value’ in this case being a contribution towards employment and skills enhancement in the Borough.

Central Lancashire Biodiversity and Nature Conservation SPD provides guidance for developers in relation to improving biodiversity of the Central Lancashire area. Its main goal is to ensure that there is no net loss of nature conservation assets and where appropriate there is an improvement in them. It also explains the Council’s approach towards conserving, protecting and enhancing biodiversity and ecological networks.

South Ribble Residential Design SPD discusses design in very specific terms. Whilst more attuned to residential extensions this document is also used to assist with the design of new build residential development and with regards to separation with properties beyond the site bounds.

Page 137

9. Assessment of the Scheme Principle of Development

a. The application site is designated by Policy G3 as Safeguarded Land in the South Ribble Local Plan 2015. The application site is specifically referenced as S3 South of Coote Lane, Chain House Lane, Farington and the policy is set out below:

Policy G3 –Safeguarded Land for Future Development

Within the borough, land remains safeguarded and not designated for any specific purpose within the Plan period at the following locations:

S1 South of Factory Lane and east of the West Coast Main Line S2 Southern area of the Major Development Site at Pickering’s Farm, Penwortham S3 South of Coote Lane, Chain House Lane, Farington S4 Land off Church Lane, Farington S5 Land off Emnie Lane, Leyland

Existing uses will for the most part remain undisturbed during the Plan period or until the Plan is reviewed. Planning permission will not be granted for development which would prejudice potential longer term, comprehensive development of the land.

b. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF states that planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan. This is emphasised through Paragraph 11 which states that:

Paragraph 11 - Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means:

c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or

d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date7, granting permission unless:

i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed6; or

ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

c. Footnote 7 states: This includes, for applications involving the provision of housing, situations where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites (with the appropriate buffer, as set out in paragraph 73); or where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that the delivery of housing was substantially below (less than 75% of) the housing requirement over the previous three years. Transitional arrangements for the Housing Delivery Test are set out in Annex 1.

d. Paragraph 73 of the Framework is set out below:

Maintaining supply and delivery

Paragraph 73. Strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of housing delivery over the plan period, and all plans should consider whether it is appropriate

Page 138

to set out the anticipated rate of development for specific sites. Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies36, or against their local housing need where the strategic policies are more than five years old37.

The supply of specific deliverable sites should in addition include a buffer (movedforward from later in the plan period) of:

a) 5% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land; orb) 10% where the local planning authority wishes to demonstrate a five yearsupply of deliverable sites through an annual position statement or recentlyadopted plan38, to account for any fluctuations in the market during that year; orc) 20% where there has been significant under delivery of housing over the previous three years, to improve the prospect of achieving the planned supply39

Footnote 37 states:

Unless these strategic policies have been reviewed and found not to require updating. Where local housing need is used as the basis for assessing whether a five year supply of specific deliverable sites exists, it should be calculated using the standard method set out in national planning guidance.

e. The applicant for this application argues that the council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and that the titled balance referred to in paragraph 11 (d) of the Framework is engaged. The applicant has provided a number of appeal decision where the lack of a 5-year land supply results in Policy G3 being out of date in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Framework. The applicant acknowledges that two appeal decisions have been submitted by a third party which seek to dispute this position but that other appeal decisions post 2018 clarify that if there is no 5 year supply the titled balance is engaged and safeguarded land policies are out of date.

f. Further, the applicant argues that that irrespective of the 5 year housing supply position, on the basis that any conflict, if established with Policy G3, would in the applicants view, result in limited harm. Harm they argue, that would be outweighed by the very significant benefits being delivered and the absence of constraints (Paragraph 1.4 of the planning statement Ref: 18 294). These benefits include

The delivery of open market housing to assist in boosting the supply of housing in South Ribble

The delivery of 30% affordable housing which accords with Policy 7 of the CLCS The site is safeguarded for development The site is in an accessible location Provision of open space to meet the needs of residents. A range of social and economic benefits. CIL, New Homes bonus, Council Tax

revenue construction jobs and increased spending within the local economy.

The applicant is clear that the principle of development is therefore, acceptable.

Page 139

g. The Council accept that the appeal decision notice at Brindle Road from August 2018 stated that the established position in law is that the Council at that time was not able to demonstrate a 5year housing supply. Further, the Council has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Chorley and Preston Council to agree a housing position.

h. Since the Brindle Road decision of August 2019 there have been a number of significant changes and the housing supply position for the Borough has also changed. Whilst the Memorandum of Understanding with Chorley and Preston Councils is still extant the Government has also issued the standard methodology for calculating housing need. For South Ribble the standard method identifies a housing need of 213 units per annum whereas the adopted Core Strategy (the subject of the MoU) provides a need of 417 per annum.

i. The recently published 2019 Housing Land Position Statement provides a 5 year supply calculation for both scenarios. In both instances the calculation provides a supply of deliverable sites above the 5 year requirement. For both calculations the assumptions used take a worst case scenario approach. In the instance of calculations relating to the Core Strategy figure the backlog of under delivery since 2003 is accounted for as well as a buffer of 5%. Using the standard method this has a base date of 2014 and therefore under delivery since then is accounted for together with a buffer of 5%.

j. The identified supply of deliverable sites therefore ranges from 5.9 years supply using the Core Strategy figure to 17.7 years supply using the standard method. Therefore a 5 year supply can be demonstrated in both scenarios. It is your Officer’s view therefore that the “tilted balance” discussed earlier should not be engaged. On this basis having regard to national and local policy requirements the development is not presently required to ensure the Borough’s housing needs are met

The comprehensive development of Safeguarded Land

k. The application site forms part of a wider site that has been safeguarded and the ethos of the current local plan for large scale sites is to require masterplans to be prepared to ensure that such sites are developed in a comprehensive manner. Therefore, should this site be required for development, concern is raised about the piece meal nature of the application without due regard to the surrounding site. Policy G3 is not specifically safeguarded land solely for the purposes of residential development. Rather, Policy G3 states “land remains safeguarded and not designated for any specific purpose”. The Policy explains that existing uses will for the most part remain undisturbed until the plan is reviewed. At that stage the land designation will be considered through the statutory process.

l. The current review of the local plan will provide the opportunity to consider whether new development of a garden village type settlement is the more appropriate way to plan for sustainable growth within South Ribble. The problems associated with Air Quality have become more understood and through the local plan review safeguarded land may be required to remain free from development while other forms and settlement patterns within the Borough can be considered. It is acknowledged that little weight can be attached to the review of the local plan, however the proposed development as a permanent development is considered to be contrary to Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan as it would prejudice possible long-term comprehensive development of the land.

m. In 2014 the site known as Coote Lane, Farington, Leyland adjacent to the current application was the subject of a planning application for 105 dwellings which was dismissed at Appeal (Appeal ref; APP/F2360/A/13/22022973). Paragraph 18 of the said Decision Letter concludes that the proposal (which was subject to similar policies of the current application) would seriously undermine the Council’s ability to manage the comprehensive development of the area. Paragraph 22 of the Decision Letter concludes that the proposal would harm the

Page 140

Council’s ability to manage the comprehensive development of the area “That is to ensure sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, and to coordinate development requirements”.

9.14. To conclude, the proposal as a permanent development is considered to be contrary to Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan as it would prejudice possible long-term comprehensive development of the land.

Planning Obligations

9.15. Policy A1: Developer Contributions of the South Ribble Local Plan expects new development to contribute to mitigating its impact on infrastructure, services and the environment. South Ribble’s Infrastructure Delivery Schedule includes the following project areas to be delivered by 2026: • Public Transport; • Cycle Schemes; • Highway Improvements; • Health; • Education; • Green Infrastructure/Public Realm; and • There are also pan-Central Lancashire transport schemes.

9.16. Contributions would be secured as a planning obligation through a Section 106 agreement and through the charging schedule associated with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Additionally, for highways works the use of Section 38 and/or Section 278 would be the agreed delivery mechanism. 9.17. The level of CIL for this development if planning permission is given would be calculated as part of any reserved matters application once the details of the scheme were submitted.

Highway and Transport

9.18. The site is located to the rear of Oakdene on Chain House Lane. Chain House Lane is a classified road with a speed limit of 40mph. The site would be accessed from a new propriety junction on Chain House Lane. Chain House Lane currently has a footway under1m in width running along its northern side and a footway varying in width from 1.6m to 0m along its southern side within the vicinity of the proposed access. LCC as the highway authority has advised that having reviewed the five year data base for personal Injury Accident (PIA) the data base indicates there have been a total of two slight incidents. LCC Highways has advised that these accidents would not be worsened by the proposed development.

9.19. The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment (TA) Document No. which was reviewed by LCC Highways. Initially a number of concerns were raised and the development was considered as unacceptable in terms of sustainable transport provision. The TA failed to demonstrate that the site can provide pedestrian/cycle connectivity to integrate within the existing built and proposed environments. The following points needed to be addressed by the application.

1. A drawing indicating a 2m footway along the sites full frontage of Chain House Land and Church Lane linking the site with the existing bus stops and the wider footway network.

2. Upgrading of the bus stops on church Lane to Quality Bus standard to be EA compliant.3. The submission of an interim travel Plan

Page 141

4. A drawing showing the proposed 30mph speed extension along chain house Lane and proposed mitigation measures to support the reduction

5. Reviewed trip rates6. Reviewed Trip distribution7. Section 106 contribution towards cycle parking enhancements at Lostock Hall train

station8. Section 106 contribution provided to support bus services9. Revised drawing showing acceptable sightlines overland fully within the applicants

control and or over the adopted highway.

(Appendix A sets out the LCC Highways response dated 28.01.2019). 9.20. The applicant submitted an updated TA updated in April 2019 Document Ref: CP/18355/TA/01 and an Interim Travel Plan which sets out measures to encourage sustainable travel, a mechanism to monitor and review and an Action Plan.

9.21. The revised TA concluded that the proposed development can be accommodated without detriment to the operational capacity or safety of the local highway network and that it can be readily accessed on foot, by bicycle and by local public transport services. LCC Highways advised that the applicant has agreed to support the request for a public transport contribution. Concerns about point 1 remain.

9.22. A revised plan was received to address point 1 which LCC Highways has confirmed that the amended plan is acceptable. However, clarification is still required about the bus contribution.

9.23. A resolution to this final issue has not been met when preparing this report and an update will be provided.

Character and Appearance

9.24. The site is 3.6 hectares in size and the application is for up to 100 dwellings/apartments which would provide for 27.7 dwellings per hectare (DPH). An illustrative masterplan was submitted with the application which has since been revised to address comments made by Homes England (HE). HE own the surrounding parcels of land and expressed reservations about lack of a coordinated comprehensive development of S3 Safeguarded Land and that the initial masterplan failed to provide connectivity to parts of land in HE ownership. A revised illustrative plan has been submitted entitled Illustrative Masterplan Drawing No 1638WHD/CHL/1M01 8 April 2019 which demonstrates greater connectivity to the surrounding area. HE is now satisfied with this approach. The Masterplan provides for an area of open space utilising the existing hedgerows.

9.25. Paragraph 124 of the NPPF provides guidance on design matters and makes clear that great weight should be given to design matters. “The creation of high-quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities”. The NPPF makes clear that good design is now fundamental to the planning process. This needs to ensure design is not a discretionary. Policy 17 of the CLCS and Policy G17 of the SRLP among other things, requires development to be well related to neighbouring buildings and the locality in terms of its size, scale and intensity (plot coverage).

9.26. The surrounding area is described as semi-rural with housing either one or two storey for the most part in larger than average plot sizes typical of the semi-rural nature of the area. There are some terraces located to the east of the site. The applicant has advised that the

Page 142

proposal seeks up to 100 new dwellings which will consist of a mix of market and affordable housing ranging from 1 to 5 bedroom properties. The Transport Assessment advises that the development would include houses and apartments. Concern is raised about the use of apartments and the potential height of this type of development. The site is relatively flat and there are no three storey residential units within the immediate locality. The applicant has since confirmed that a condition restricting the development to be two storey would be acceptable. 9.27. As the application is in outline with all other matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved, the provided site layout is largely illustrative, with the exception of the proposed access. Consequently, a detailed assessment of the application against these polices would occur at the Reserved Matters stage.

Affordable Housing Needs Provision

9.28. Core Strategy Policy 7 Housing and special needs is applicable. The development is required to deliver 30% affordable housing which is proposed within the application. The Council’s housing office has stated that there is shortage of certain types of affordable housing. If the application is approved this aspect can be addressed through the Section 106 agreement. 9.29. Therefore, the proposed affordable housing element of the scheme meets Policy 7 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy. Ground Conditions

9.30. The application is accompanied by a Geo Environmental Desk Top Study which assesses the impact of the proposal with respect to the ground conditions. The Environmental Health Officer has advised that subject to conditions controlling this aspect the scheme is acceptable. Water Environment: Drainage and Flooding

9.31. The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy dated April 2019. The Flood Risk Assessment has reviewed all sources of flood risk which includes fluvial, tidal, pluvial, groundwater, sewers and flooding from artificial sources.

9.32. The proposed development site is located within Flood Zone 1 and covers a site area of 3.7ha of. The water course known as Mill Brook runs from east to west across the site through a small pond in the centre of the site. Consisting of three fields separated by hedges and ditches there are tributary ditches which run around the east, south and part of the west boundaries of the site.

9.33. As the proposal is residential in nature the development is classed as “more vulnerable” as set out in Table 2: Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The PPG states that this type of land use is appropriate for Flood Zone 1 providing the proposed development would not increase flood risk elsewhere. 9.34. From the submitted topographical survey Mill brook is between 0.6m and 1.0m below the lowest site levels and the applicant has advised that the site levels will be raised to assist the drainage connections to the existing watercourse, and therefore the site is considered to be at low risk of flooding from rivers.

9.35. The report acknowledges that the site is situated in an area that has the potential for flooding to occur at surface. The finished levels on site will generally be higher than at

Page 143

present and the Drainage Strategy advises that it is not considered to be at significant risk of flooding from ground water. Whilst there are no public sewers crossing the site there is a public combined sewer running from east to west along Chain House Lane. Foul drainage has been assumed as connecting to the existing combined sewer.

9.36. The drainage strategy has been designed to ensure that the site can be developed without increasing flood risk elsewhere. In line with National and Local Policy infiltration was first considered. However, the Geo technical report has advised that infiltration techniques would not be appropriate due to top soil overlying stiff boulder clay deposits.

9.37. The next option is to consider discharge to a watercourse and on that basis a series of oversized pipes with flow controls together with underground attenuation tanks acting as storage are proposed. The levels across the site would need to be raised by 1.5m to ensure gravity connections can be achieved.

9.38. Third party representation raise concerns about previous flooding incidents which have had serious repercussions within the area. United Utilities, and the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) have advised that the drainage strategy is acceptable subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions controlling drainage, surface water and the appropriate mechanisms for the maintenance and management of these aspects.

9.39. It is concluded that the submitted documentation and information demonstrates that the proposed development would be at a low risk of flooding. It also confirms that surface water runoff from the development can be drained sustainably ensuring that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. The foul water drainage proposals do not raise any issues, subject to conditions. The development complies with policy including the requirements of NPPF and is considered to be acceptable in terms of drainage and flood risk matters subject to conditions. 9.40. The development thereby complies with Policy 29, Water Management of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy, and Policy G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan and Section 14 of the NPPF.

Ecology and Nature Conservation

9.41. The application is accompanied by an Ecology Survey and Assessment dated October 2018. The Assessment represents the results of a desktop study extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Great Crested Newts Netting survey carried out in July 2018. The assessment identifies that the vegetation communities present are typical of the local area and the conditions present. The site contains only common and widespread plant species.

9.42. With regard to the watercourses including ponds no great crested newt were detected at Pond 1 or Ditch 1 within the site, and the ponds within proximity to the site are unsuitable for use by breeding great crested newt. It is considered that the proposed development should be conducted using precautionary Reasonable Avoidance Measures (RAMs) for the protection of amphibians due to the presence of Pond 1 on site.

9.43. As all trees on site would be retained; the impact of the development upon roosting bats can be reasonably discounted.

9.44. The assessment advises that all hedgerows within the site (i.e. Hedgerows 1 to 9) are Priority Habitat and Hedgerow 7 is ‘important’ in accordance with The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 wildlife and landscape criteria. The development will retain and protect all hedgerows on site except for the removal of sections of Hedgerow 5 and 8 to facilitate access to properties and visibility splays. Where removal of localised sections of hedgerow is unavoidable, appropriate and proportionate compensatory native planting will be achieved.

Page 144

9.45. Core Strategy Policy 22 requires proposals to conserve, protect and seek opportunities to enhance and manage the biological and geological assets of the area through a number of measures. Local Plan Policy G13 seeks to retain and enhance trees, woodlands and hedgerows and to mitigate appropriately for any losses. 9.46. The Council’s Ecology consultants have raised no objection to the proposed development concluding that no significant ecological issues were identified within the submitted information. Issues relating to nesting birds can be controlled via conditions. However more detail is required on the level of mitigation for the loss of over 3ha of low value ecological habitats. Although the illustrative site layout is not supported because of inadequate on-site mitigation this aspect can be addressed through a condition.

9.47. Subject to a number of conditions controlling nesting of birds, landscape and management plan to be submitted, protection of amphibians the development is acceptable and supports the aims of the Paragraph 170 Framework and CSLP Policy 22 and SRLP Policy G13.

Trees

9.48. The application is accompanied by a Tree Survey Report and Tree Survey Drawing and Root Protection Area. which advises just two of the 28 Tree/Hedgerows are classed as U un-categorised one of these trees is dead and one suffers from significant die back. The council’s tree officer has advised that subject to appropriate conditions controlling root protection areas during construction and landscape management no objection is raised to the proposed development. The proposed development would meet the aims of Policy G13 of the SRLP.

Education

9.49. LCC Education has been consulted and advised that a contribution towards school places is not required.

Open Space Contribution

9.50. As the proposed development would result in a net gain of ten or more dwellings a contribution per dwelling would be required for playing pitch of £1,507 together with a contribution to equipped play areas. If planning permission was granted this could be secured by condition.

Employment and Skills Statement

9.51. Employment skills are a key priority across Lancashire, Central Lancashire and South Ribble. Creating employment and ensuring local people can access that employment and have the skills to do so is critical to ensuring the prosperity of our communities. 9.52. Partnership working through LEP and City Deal skills and employment bodies is ongoing to ensure that employment skills issues are prioritised and acted upon to make a real difference and to maximise opportunities coming forward. The proposed development of this residential site provides a key opportunity within the construction industry. On that basis a condition is recommended to secure these aspects and to ensure that the development meets the aims of the Employment and Skills SPD.

Page 145

Health

9.53 Concern has been raised by third parties that there are not sufficient dentists and health care provision within the area. The NHS Chorley and South Ribble Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) has advised that the two nearest practices to Chain House Lane – New Longton Surgery and Lostock Hall have very little capacity, if any developer contributions can be made (however small) to either practice it may help them – for example to reconfigure a room to create extra capacity or to support with equipment etc.

9.54 Concern has been raised about the impact of the proposal in terms of air quality especially given the no of proposed cars to the site. An Air Quality Assessment is required for applications over 75 dwellings and as this has not been submitted the application does not meet the aims of the South Ribble Validation Checklist.

Other Issues

9.55. Economic Development - Ensuring sustainable development is fundamental to the NPPF. There are three dimensions defined by the NPPF, describing the role of the planning system in sustainable development: • Economic: the planning system plays an economic role by ensuring that an adequate amount of land of the right type is available in appropriate locations at appropriate times to support growth and innovation. • Social: the planning system plays a social role by supporting strong, vibrant, and healthy communities. It does this by ensuring a sufficient supply of housing for the needs of present and future generations alongside accessible local services. This reflects the community's needs and supports its health, social and cultural well-being. • Environment: the planning system plays an environmental role by protecting and enhancing the natural, historical and built environments 9.56. A key element of this is the delivery of the City Deal. A City Deal for the South Ribble and Preston area was agreed with the South Ribble and Preston authorities, LCC, the Local Enterprise Partnership and Homes England and was signed by Government in 2013. The Preston, South Ribble and Lancashire City Deal is taking forward £434M of new investment, expanding transport infrastructure, supporting the creation of some 20,000 new jobs and generating the development of 17,000 new homes over a ten-year period. 9.57. It is acknowledged that the proposed development would contribute to the delivery of housing and would support the aspirations of the City Deal. However, the site does not form part of the agreed sites that are subject to the requirements of the Deal and therefore little weight can be attached to this aspect. 10. Planning Balance

10.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 10.2 The South Ribble Local Plan at Policy G3 allocates this site as Safeguarded Land. The applicant maintains that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing supply and therefore the titled balance referred to in Paragraph 11 of the Framework must be engaged as relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date. On that basis Paragraph 11 indicates that planning permission should be granted unless any

Page 146

adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. 10.3 The recent appeal decision letter Ref: APP/F2360/W/18/3198822 known as the Land off Brindle Road (Bellway) established at that time the position in planning law that the Council was not able to demonstrate a 5 year housing supply. However, the Council has recently undertaken the end of year completion surveys and produced the annual Housing Land Position statement. There have also been recent changes to the NPPF regarding housing need and supply. In either case the Council is confident that the borough has a 5 year housing supply and therefore the tilted balance does not need to be engaged. 10.4 It is acknowledged that there are benefits to the scheme as set out in paragraph 9.5 and the applicant questions what harm would there be to the approval of the scheme.

10.5 Concern is raised that the proposed development is not a sustainable site for all modes of transport. LCC has requested a contribution to the bus services however the applicant has objected to this aspect. LCC Highways have not formally objected to the scheme and therefore only moderate weight can be attached to this aspect.

10.6 Concern is raised about the impact of unplanned development upon the local railway crossing known as Lodge Lane Crossing. The Local Plan review would provide the opportunity to consider the implications of any future land designation together with the impact of that use on the Railway crossing in a timely, plan led approach. An update will be provided on whether Network Rail wish to formally object to the scheme at the meeting. Therefore, only limited weight can be attached to this aspect.

10.7 The Council consider that the proposed development would be in conflict with Policy G3 as the site has been safeguarded during the plan period. As there is no identified need to release the land for housing, concern is raised about the piecemeal development of part of the site without due regard to the opportunity for a comprehensive well planned development -if the site is required in the future for development.

10.8 Overall it is concluded that the benefits of the proposed development would not outweigh any harm associated with approving the scheme. On balance therefore, the proposal would not constitute sustainable development for the purposes of the Framework and the Development plan policies when taken as a whole.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The proposed development provides for 100 dwellings on a site allocated as Safeguarded Lane under Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan. The main issue is whether the proposal would amount to a sustainable form of development with reference to housing supply and the comprehensive development of the area. The Council has demonstrated a 5 year housing supply and therefore the application should be determined in line with the Development Plan policies and any other material considerations. Whilst concerns have been raised by third parties about the ability of the local highway network to cope with the additional traffic, together with concerns about ecology, drainage, noise and air pollution, there are no formal objections raised from any of the statutory consultees.

11.2 However, the site forms part of a parcel of land allocated as Safeguarded by Policy G3 of the SRBC and on that basis the piecemeal development of part of the site would not constitute sustainable development and would cause harm to the possible comprehensive

Page 147

development of the area. It is concluded on balance that there are no other materials considerations to outweigh the harm identified by granting planning permission.

12. Recommendation 12.1. The application site is allocated as Safeguarded Land through Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan. The proposal by virtue of its nature, scale and degree of permanence would be contrary to Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan as the Council can demonstrate a 5 Year Housing Supply.

12.2 The proposal by virtue of its nature, scale and degree of permanence would be contrary to Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan as the development would harm the ability of the Council to manage the comprehensive development of the area. Therefore the scheme would not amount to a sustainable form of development. 12.3. Insufficient evidence has been submitted that demonstrate that the proposed development would not cause harm due to air pollution and therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy 30 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refusal.

REASONS FOR REFUSAL:

1. The application site is allocated as Safeguarded Land through Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan. The proposal by virtue of its nature, scale and degree of permanence would be contrary to Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan as the Council can demonstrate a 5 Year Housing Supply

2. The proposal by virtue of its nature, scale and degree of permanence would be contrary to Policy G3 of the South Ribble Local Plan as the development would harm the ability of the Council to manage the comprehensive development of the area. Therefore the scheme would not amount to a sustainable form of development.

3. Insufficient evidence in the form of an Air Quality Assessment has not been submitted that demonstrate that the proposed development would not cause harm due to air pollution and therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy 30 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy.

RELEVANT POLICY

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

Central Lancashire Core Strategy1 Locating Growth 3 Travel 4 Housing Delivery 5 Housing Density 6 Housing Quality 7 Affordable and Special Needs Housing 9 Economic Growth and Employment 17 Design of New Buildings 22 Biodiversity and Geodiversity 26 Crime and Community Safety 27 Sustainable Resources and New Developments 29 Water Management

Page 148

30 Air Quality

South Ribble Local Plan 2012-2026A1 Policy A1 Developer ContributionsG3 Safeguarded Land for Future DevelopmentF1 Car ParkingG13 Trees, Woodlands and DevelopmentG16 Biodiversity and Nature ConservationG17 Design Criteria for New DevelopmentG1 Green Belt

Page 149

Application Number 07/2020/00788/FUL Address

5 East Square Longton Lancashire PR4 5NL

Applicant Thomas William Banks

Agent

Christopher Warwick 104 Mossy Lea Road Wrightington Wigan WN6 9RD United Kingdom

Development Erection of 1 No. detached two storey dwellinghouse with access off Long Croft

Officer Recommendation Officer Name

Refusal Mrs Linda Ashcroft

Date application valid 08.10.2020 Target Determination Date 03.12.2020 Extension of Time

Page 151

Agenda Item 8

1. Introduction 1.1 This application is being brought before the Planning Committee as the applicant is

related to a member of staff and an elected member. 2. Report Summary 2.1 This application is in full and relates to the erection of 1 No. detached two storey

dwellinghouse with access to be taken off Long Croft located to the north of the site.

2.2 The proposed dwelling will be constructed within part of the garden area of No. 5 and 6 East Square and is located within an existing built up area.

2.3 No objections have been received from statutory consultees.

2.4 A total of 15 separate letters of representation have been received from neighbouring

properties.

2.5 The proposal has been assessed against current planning policies, including the national planning policy framework and the development plan policies.

2.6 The proposal is contrary to Policy G17 (Design Criteria for New Development) and

therefore recommended for Refusal.

3. Application Site and Surrounding Area

3.1 The application site is located within the garden area of Nos. 5 and 6 East Square and is situated within a wholly residential area. Access to the site will be taken off Long Croft and is situated at the head of a cul de sac.

3.2 The northern boundary of the site (Long Croft) is separated by a 2m high timber fence

with a 1.8m high timber fence to the eastern and southern boundaries. There is no boundary treatment between Nos. 5 and 6 East Square.

3.3 There are a number of conifer trees to the south east of the site which are situated

within the garden area of No. 10 Dudley Close. 3.4 The site is located within the existing built up area as defined by Policy B1 in the

Local Plan. 4. Site History 4.1 There is no planning history to report. 5. Proposal 5.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of 1No. detached two storey

dwellinghouse with access off Long Croft. 5.2 The proposed dwelling will have a footprint of some 7.1m by 9m consisting of two

storeys with an a-symmetrical roof measuring 8.3m to the ridge; the eaves will measure a minimum of 4m and a maximum of 4.9m. The walls will be finished in light coloured render with areas of stone work at ground floor level and charcoal cladding to the covered entrance; grey Redland slate effect tiles are proposed to the roof.

Page 152

5.3 The proposed dwelling will accommodate four bedrooms at first floor, including an en-suite and a separate bathroom.

5.4 Three parking spaces are to be provided to the front, the main garden area will be set

to the side (west) of the dwelling and the boundary treatment to the south will consist of 1.85m high fencing together with trees to the part of the southern and western boundaries (adjacent side elevation of Nos. 5 and 6).

5.5 A refuse storage area and cycle store are proposed to the front westerly corner of the

site which will be screened by existing 1.8m high timber fencing along the northern and western boundaries.

5.6 Nos. 5 and 6 East Square are within the ownership of the applicant who rents out

these dwellings. 6. Representations 6.1 Two site notices have been posted, one on East Square and one on Long Croft and a

total of 21 neighbours have been notified. 6.2 Letters of Objection 6.2.1 A total of 15 individual letters of objection have been received, two were requested to

be confidential, two residents wrote in twice, one being a duplication. 6.2.2 Reasons for objection are: 6.2.3 Highway Safety/Issues

Construction traffic will use Long Croft which is a narrow road

Traffic congestion

Restrict access for emergency services and larger vehicles

Long Croft is already badly maintained

Increased traffic

Landsmoor Drive and Long Croft already busy and congested roads; Landsmoor Drive is used as a circular bus route

Pavement areas of Long Croft are commonly used to play safely by small children

Obstruction of driveways

Residents of Landsmoor Drive already park on Long Croft

Application needs to take into account disabled residents with mobility issues

Highway safety issue due to the proximity of the access to No. 4 Long Croft

East Square densely populated with cars parking on both drives and pavements

Do not think sufficient parking spaces are possible hence cars will park on the pavements in Long Croft

6.2.4 Character/Appearance/Residential Amenity

Ideal retirement environment will be destroyed

Application constitutes a ‘garden grab’

Would overshadow and block out natural light

Too large a property and not in keeping with the area

Overlooking, loss of privacy to lounge, bedroom and garden

Dwelling will be very close to the boundary of No. 5 Long Croft

Overbearing

Very little garden remaining at No. 5 and 6 East Square

Page 153

Trees adjacent No. 5 Long Croft and a property in Dudley Close; if these are ever cut down, the new dwelling would have an overbearing impact on other residents

Loss of light and sunlight

Proposed dwelling has a small garden area resulting in front driveway being used for recreational purposes

6.2.5 Other Issues

Site address is East Square but access will be fronting Long Croft hence claiming a Long Croft postcode

Believe dwelling will be occupied as an HMO/bedsits

No. 6 East Square is being turned into a home in multiple occupation with 4 tenants; don’t know where the additional three occupants will park

Applicant will employ the cheapest builders who will start the job but will leave the project should problems arise

Claimed CIL exemption but believe only allowed if applicant intends to live in property for 3 years

Properties on East Square are valued less than those in Long Acre

Will add to existing antisocial behaviour problems that the landlord of Nos. 5 and 6 East Square has failed to deal with

When the properties on East Square were originally built, garages were proposed in the garden of Nos. 5 and 6 but as this would have required access from Long Croft, this was refused. Why isn’t this the case now.

Small piece of land which the Council do not maintain and could potentially be owned by No. 4 Long Croft

Concerned that plans are being passed without careful consideration and thought for residents

Reference was not made in the letter that access would be via Long Croft; this is misleading and may have deterred valid objections from residents

Believe the applicant is not actually the owner of Nos. 5 and 6 East Square

Noise from tenants of a 4 bedroom property

Planning Committee should weigh up personal benefit against the detrimental effects caused to residents

As a result of this application, one property has been put up for sale with another to follow

6.2.6 In addition to the above, visuals have been submitted from the occupiers of No. 4

Long Croft, which demonstrates that egress will potentially be unsafe should planning permission be granted for a dwelling to be accessed at this point.

6.2.7 In response to some of the objections raised under ‘Other Issues’, post codes, value

of properties, potential builders, tenure/occupiers, land ownership (outside the site area), ongoing anti-social behaviour/noise issues and personal benefits to the applicant are not material planning considerations.

6.2.8 There is no indication within the application that the property will be used as a House

in Multiple Occupation (HMO). In addition, a dwelling within a C3 Use Class (Dwellinghouse) can be converted to a HMO (Class C4 - Up to 6 tenants) without the requirement of planning permission.

6.2.9 In respect of the original development of the dwellings in East Square, these

properties were formerly owned by the local authority. The Council’s Senior Estates Surveyor has been consulted and has confirmed that none of the land is within the ownership of the Council.

Page 154

6.2.10 Neighbours were initially notified on the 16 October but when it became apparent that the access was to be from Long Croft, the description was amended to this effect and all residents of Long Croft, who were not initially notified, were sent letters on the 20 October. A site notice was also posted on East Square and Long Croft on the 20 October.

6.2.11 Certificate A has been completed as part of the application which confirms that the

applicant is the owner of the land which is the subject of the application. 7. Summary of Responses 7.1 LCC Highways comment that Long Croft is suitable to serve a development of this

size and nature. A review of recorded accident data has found that there has been no incidents recorded within the vicinity of the site within the last 5 years. LCC Highways have confirmed that the parking arrangements are acceptable and is of the opinion that the proposal would not have a severe impact on highway safety or highway capacity within the immediate vicinity of the site and therefore has no objections.

7.1.1 Should the Local Planning Authority be minded to approve the application, a number

of highway safety conditions have been requested together with informatives relating to highways works.

7.2 Environmental Health have raised no objection but have requested a number of

conditions relating to burning of waste material/vegetation on site, dust management plan, hours of construction, wheel wash, piling, contaminated land desk study, contamination found during works, importation of material, air source heat pump details, biomass and provision of an electric vehicle recharge point.

7.3 The Council’s Arboriculturist has raised no objection. 7.4 The Council’s Estates Team have confirmed that they do not have an interest in the

application site 7.5 United Utilties comment that the surface and foul water shall be dealt with

separately. Details of a surface water drainage system shall be submitted based upon the principles set out in the NPPF subject to approval of the application.

8. Material Considerations 8.1 Policy Considerations 8.2 NPPF

8.2.1 The NPPF is a material planning consideration to which weight needs to be attached.

The NPPF promotes a presumption in favour of sustainable development and

supports sustainable economic development to deliver, amongst other things, homes.

8.2.2 Paragraph 122 of the NPPF advises that decisions should take in to account the

desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including

residential gardens).

8.3 Core Strategy Policy Considerations

8.3.1 Policy 1 (Locating Growth) of the Core Strategy encourages the focussing of growth

and investment in the Key Service Centres of Chorley and Leyland and the other

main urban areas in South Ribble.

Page 155

8.3.2 Policy 5 (Housing Density) of the Core Strategy covers Housing Density and states:

“The authorities will secure densities of development which are in keeping with local

areas and which will have no detrimental impact on the amenity, character,

appearance, distinctiveness and environmental quality of an area, consideration will

also be given to making efficient use of land.”

8.3.3 Policy 6 (Housing Quality) of the Core Strategy covers Housing Quality and aims at

improving the quality of housing.

8.3.4 Policy 17 (Design of New Buildings) requires new buildings to be designed in a

manner to take account of the character and appearance of the local area.

8.4 South Ribble Local Plan

8.4.1 Policy B1 (Existing Built-Up Area) allows for development provided, amongst other

things, it complies with the requirements for parking, is in keeping with the character

and appearance of the area and will not adversely affect the amenities of nearby

residents.

8.4.2 Policy F1 (Parking Standards) requires car parking provision to accord with the

parking standards. In respect of a two bed dwelling, two off road parking spaces are

required.

8.4.3 Policy G17 (Design Criteria for New Development) permits development which does

not have a detrimental impact on the existing building, neighbouring buildings or on

the street scene by virtue of its design, height, scale, orientation, plot density,

massing, proximity, or use of materials. Furthermore, the development should not

cause harm to neighbouring property by leading to undue overlooking,

overshadowing or have an overbearing effect.

9. Other Material Considerations

9.1 The main issues to consider include the details of the design of the dwelling, the

impact upon residential amenity and highway matters.

9.2 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

9.2.1 The Community Infrastructure Levy was adopted by the Council on 24 July 2013 and

became effective on the 1 September 2013. The required monies, which the CIL

charging schedule details £65/m2 of floor space (multiplied by the BCIS Index Figure

for the current year), would contribute to infrastructure requirements contained within

the Regulation 123 list. The application is accompanied by a self-build exemption

and therefore the development will not be liable to any CIL payment.

9.3 Suitability of Access

9.3.1 The access is proposed off Long Acre set to the north of the site at the head of a cul de sac. As the site forms part of the garden area of Nos. 5 and 6 East Square, there have been a number of objections received concerning the use of Long Acre as opposed to East Square. Due to the relationship of Nos. 5 and 6 East Square, access would not be possible off East Square. Lancashire County Council Highways have confirmed that the parking arrangements are acceptable and has raised no objection to the proposed development.

9.4 Parking Arrangements

Page 156

9.4.1 The plans demonstrate a four bedroom dwelling for which three off road parking

spaces are required. A proposed site plan demonstrates that this is achievable and as stated above, LCC Highways have confirmed that the parking arrangements are acceptable. The proposal therefore meets with the aims of Policy F1 in the South Ribble Local Plan.

9.5 Design, Appearance and Impact on Character of Area 9.5.1 The site forms part of the garden area of Nos. 5 and 6 East Square and is situated

within a wholly residential area. 9.5.2 East Square consists of semi-detached and terraced two storey dwelling houses.

Within Long Croft there are two storey semi-detached dwellinghouses on the western side and detached bungalows situated on the eastern side with semi-detached dormer bungalow properties situated within Landsmoor Drive.

9.5.3 No. 5 Long Acre lies immediately to the east of the site and a detached bungalow

with an attached garage to the side which is set approximately 1m off the common boundary.

9.5.4 No. 4 Long Acre is set to the north of the site and is a two storey dwellinghouse. 9.5.5 The proposed dwelling will be set back from the main front elevation of No. 5 Long

Croft by some 5m being approximately level with the attached garage. 9.5.6 In respect of the scale, design and appearance of the proposed dwelling, it is

considered that this will not detract from the character and appearance of the street scene when viewed from Long Croft.

9.5.7 The proposed side garden area for the new dwelling will extend to the side of Nos. 5

and 6 East Square and will project forward of No. 5 by some 2m and by some 1.6m of No. 6. It is proposed to plant high trees in this area to provide screening.

9.5.8 Due to the siting of the proposal and its relationship to Nos. 5 and 6 East Square it is

considered that the proposal will appear an incongruous feature in the street scene when viewed from East Square.

9.6 Relationship to Neighbours 9.6.1 The site will reduce the garden area of both Nos. 5 and 6 East Square considerably

and will leave a 1.2m gap to the side of each dwelling for access to the rear. The garden area of the proposed dwelling will project forward of No. 5 by some 2m and by some 1.6m of No. 6. No. 5 East Square will have a rear garden length remaining of a minimum of 6.5m and a maximum of 8.8m; No. 6 will retain a minimum length of some 8.6m and a maximum length of some of some 10.6m, for the width of the dwelling with the addition of a pedestrian access width to the side.

9.6.2 The rear elevation of the proposed dwelling will be set 1m off the southern boundary

with No. 6 East Square which will consist of a gable with a ridge height of 8.3m; this wall will be rendered and will have two ground floor windows into a kitchen area. There are no windows into the side facing elevation of No. 6 East Square.

9.6.3 The dwelling will be set some 11.4m from the side elevation of No. 5 East Square;

this property has two clear glazed first floor windows into the side facing elevation which will be set some 1.2m from the common boundary; one of these windows is a secondary window to a front bedroom. There is a set of bi-folding doors proposed

Page 157

into the ground floor west facing elevation and two windows into the first floor which will serve bed 1 and bed 4. The proposed facing elevation will have an eaves height of 4.9m with the ridge height standing at 8.3.

9.6.4 The proposed dwelling will be set approximately 1m from the adjacent bungalow at

No. 5 Long Croft. This property has an attached garage to the side which is set some 1m off the common boundary and a greenhouse within the rear garden area adjacent the common boundary. There are mature trees to the rear of No. 5 Long Croft which would appear to be within the curtilage of No. 10 Dudley Close. The rear garden area of No. 5 is some 7m deep, the first 4.2m of this will be affected by the proposed dwelling.

9.6.5 The eastern elevation of the proposed dwelling will have an eaves height of 4m and a

ridge height of 8.3; this facing wall will be finished in a light coloured render. 10. CONCLUSION 10.1 Due to the siting of the proposal and its relationship to Nos. 5 and 6 East Square

(garden area) it is considered that the proposal will appear an incongruous feature in the street scene when viewed from East Square.

10.2 The proposed dwelling, within the garden area of Nos. 5 and 6 East Square would

result in an unacceptable reduction in private amenity space for occupiers of No. 5 East Square.

10.3 The scale and siting of the dwelling would have a detrimental impact upon the

occupiers of No. 5 Long Croft and No. 6 East Square by overshadowing and would appear overbearing when viewed from the garden areas.

10.4 Due to the scale and siting of the proposal, this will result in undue loss of privacy

both to the occupiers of No. 5 East Square and any future occupiers of the proposed dwelling.

10.5 Due to the aforementioned the proposal is contrary to Policy G17 in the South Ribble

Local Plan and as such is recommended for Refusal. RECOMMENDATION: Refusal. REASONS FOR REFUSAL: 1. The siting of the proposed dwelling and the relationship of the boundary treatment of

the garden area to Nos. 5 and 6 East Square, would appear an incongruous feature in the street scene and as such is contrary to Policy G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan.

2. The scale and siting of the proposed dwelling would have a detrimental impact upon

adjacent residential properties by undue loss of private amenity space, privacy, overshadowing and would appear overbearing. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan.

RELEVANT POLICY NPPF National Planning Policy Framework 1 Locating Growth (Core Strategy Policy)

Page 158

5 Housing Density (Core Strategy Policy) 6 Housing Quality (Core Strategy Policy) 17 Design of New Buildings (Core Strategy Policy) POLB1 Existing Built-Up Areas POLF1 Car Parking POLG17 Design Criteria for New Development Note:

Page 159

Planning Committee Update Sheet 10 December 2020

Item 7 – 5 East Square, Longton

07/2020/00788/FUL

Amendment to Report

There are a number of inaccuracies in the report where reference has been made to ‘Long

Acre’; this should read ‘Long Croft’ and can be found in paragraph Nos:

6.2.5

9.3.1

9.5.3

9.5.4

Page 161

Application Number 07/2020/00876/HOH Address

61 Church Road Leyland Lancashire PR25 3AA

Applicant Janet Clark Agent Mr Alex Karanikolas

35 Mayfield Avenue ADLINGTON PR6 9QE

Development Single storey extension to side and single storey link extension to rear and external modifications


Approval with Conditions Mrs Janice Crook

Date application valid 21.10.2020 Target Determination Date 16.12.2020 Extension of Time Location Plan

Page 163

Agenda Item 9

1. Report Summary 1.1 The application is brought before planning committee as the applicant is related to an elected member. However, the application is a straight forward householder extension scheme with no neighbouring residents being unduly affected by the proposals. The application is therefore recommended for approval. 2. Site and Surrounding Area 2.1 The application relates to a residential property, 61 Church Road in Leyland which has a large detached outbuilding. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature with residential dwellings on Balcarres Road to the north, on Morris Close to the east and on Church Road and Beech Avenue to the south. Immediately to the western boundary is a bowling green. 2.2 Planning permission was granted for the erection of 2 dwellings in the rear garden of the application property and these are currently under construction. 3. Planning History

07/2007/1137/OUT Outline Application for the erection of 1no. 2 storey dwelling REF 23/01/2008

07/2018/5821/OUT Outline application for the erection of 5 dwellings (All matters reserved except Access) APC 07/12/2018

07/2020/00590/VAR Variation of conditions 2 (Plans) 3 (Facing materials) of planning permission 07/2020/00069/FUL dated 13/03/2020 amendments include amendment of the proposed house type to allow for a rear extension. Change of windows to white double glazed units. Change of window / door frame colour change and alterations to access road surface APC 16/09/2020

07/2020/00069/FUL Erection of 2no detached bungalows and detached garages on land to rear of No 61 Church Road with associated new access road APC 13/03/2020

4. Proposal 4.1 The application proposes a single storey extension to the side and a single storey link extension to the rear together with external alterations. 4.2 The side extension is to measure 7.5m wide by 5m with a pitched roof over with a ridge height of 4.4m and will have 2 rooflights to each roof slope. 4.3 The link extension is to measure 4.1m by 4.4m with a pitched roof over with a ridge height of 3.8m and will have a rooflight to each roof slope. 4.4 Both extensions will be constructed in materials to match the existing dwelling. 5. Summary of Publicity 5.1 Neighbouring properties were notified and a site notice posted with one letter of representation being received. They raise no objections in principles but comment as follows:

No elevation drawing of the eastern gable of the barn which will house the new swimming pool. Assume that there are no planned changes to this elevation as in effect it is the boundary between our properties.

There is a note on the plans that ventilation for the swimming pool will be installed to meet current standards but no indication of any ventilation outlets.

Page 164

Given the level of noise created by use of a swimming pool, the use should be restricted to reasonable hours.

The answer to one of the questions on the application form is incorrect. The Q about will trees/hedges have to be removed/trimmed should be yes. The applicant has already asked us to trim some trees that overhang the barn.

On the proposed layout, there is a dotted line that seems to indicate there is a gap between the boundary and the gable wall between the properties.

6. Summary of Consultations 6.1 No consultation was carried out. 7. Policy Background 7.1 Policy G17: Design Criteria for New Development permits new development, including extensions and free-standing structures, provided that, the proposal does not have a detrimental impact on the existing building, neighbouring buildings or on the street scene by virtue of its design, height, scale, orientation, plot density, massing, proximity, use of materials. Furthermore, the development should not cause harm to neighbouring property by leading to undue overlooking, overshadowing or have an overbearing effect; the layout, design and landscaping of all elements of the proposal, including any internal roads, car parking, footpaths and open spaces, are of a high quality and will provide an interesting visual environment which respects the character of the site and local area; the development would not prejudice highway safety, pedestrian safety, the free flow of traffic, and would not reduce the number of on-site parking spaces to below the standards stated in Policy F1, unless there are other material considerations which justify the reduction such as proximity to a public car park. Furthermore, any new roads and/or pavements provided as part of the development should be to an adoptable standard; the proposal would sustain, conserve and where appropriate enhance the significance, appearance, character and setting of a heritage asset itself and the surrounding historic environment. Where a proposed development would lead to substantial harm or loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, planning permission will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that the substantial public benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm or loss to the asset; and the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on landscape features such as mature trees, hedgerows, ponds and watercourses. In some circumstances where, on balance, it is considered acceptable to remove one or more of these features, then mitigation measures to replace the feature/s will be required either on or off-site. 8. Material Considerations 8.1 The property is a large detached dwelling with detached outbuilding to the rear. Planning permission was granted for the erection of two detached bungalows in the rear garden of the application property with a new 5m wide access drive located to the western side of the site to serve the new dwellings and to access the existing garage outbuilding. The garage is attached to a ‘barn’ building and the proposal is to link this to the main dwelling with an extension. The existing barn will be refurbished for form a pool house and the roof will have 4 velux roof lights inserted, 2 to each roof slope. This element of the proposal does not require planning permission. 8.2 The neighbouring property to the east, 63 Church Road is set back at the rear from the application property and has a blank side elevation facing the proposed link extension. No windows will be introduced into the facing elevation of the link, although an access door will be introduced. There are ground and first floor windows in the rear elevation of 63 which

Page 165

look onto its rear garden. The boundary consists of a 1.8m high fence with some trees and shrubbery along its length. It is considered there will be no undue impact on 63 Church Road from the proposed link extension. 8.3 The proposed side extension is to the western elevation and will project out towards the new access road serving the 2 bungalows currently under construction. Beyond in No 59 Church Road at a distance of approximately 12m. It has a first floor landing window and a ground floor window facing the proposed side extension. A 1.8m high fence separates this property from the new access road serving the bungalows. A new 2m high boundary wall has been erected to the application property adjacent the access road. Given the boundary treatments to both properties and the intervening access road, it is considered the proposed side extension will have no undue impact on No 59. 8.4 A number of points were raised in the letter of representation. However, it must be noted that this application is for a side extension and link extension only. The proposals for the existing barn do not require planning permission as this is an existing domestic outbuilding which can be converted without planning permission being required. Therefore, no elevation drawing of the eastern gable of the barn is required although the eastern elevation of the link extension has been submitted. 8.5 Any ventilation required for the swimming pool will be a matter for building regulations and again does not require planning permission. 8.6 Providing the use of the proposed swimming pool is for private, domestic use, the hours of use cannot be restricted by a planning condition, particularly as this element of the proposal does not require planning permission. 8.7 In respect of the application form question, the proposed extensions do not require any trees/hedges to be removed/trimmed as these extensions do not impact on any trees/hedges. The applicant has asked the neighbours to trim some trees that overhang the barn but, as indicate, this element of the development does not require planning permission. 8.8 Finally, the comment that there is a dotted line on the plans that seems to indicate there is a gap between the boundary and the gable wall between the properties is incorrect as the neighbour’s ownership is right up to the wall of the barn. Boundary disputes are not a planning matter but a private legal matter between the two parties. 9. Conclusion 9.1 For the reasons set out above, the proposal for a side extension and rear extension to link the existing outbuilding are considered to be policy compliant and the application is recommended for approval subject to the imposition of conditions. 10. RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approval with Conditions. 11. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: 1. The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of

three years beginning with the date of this permission. REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country

Planning Act 1990. 2. The development, hereby permitted, shall be carried out in accordance with the

submitted approved plans Dwg clark/03 Proposed floor plan; clark/04 Proposed elevations

Page 166

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development

3. All external facing materials shall match in colour, form and texture to those on the

existing building. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and so that the Local

Planning Authority shall be satisfied as to the details in accordance with Policy 17 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and Policy G17 in the South Ribble Local Plan 2012-2026

12. RELEVANT POLICY South Ribble Local Plan B1 Existing Built-Up Areas G17 Design Criteria for New Development Supplementary Planning Document Residential Extensions

Page 167

Application Number 07/2020/00850/COU Address

78 Hough Lane Leyland Lancashire PR25 2YB

Applicant Mr Domenico Chiaramonte - Bella Vieste Ltd

Development Change of use from optician shop to a hot food takeaway (Sui Generis)




1. Report Summary 1.1 The application proposes the change of use from a vacant former optician’s premises to a hot food takeaway, within the Sui Generis use class. The property is within the Leyland Town Centre where one of the aims of Policy E3 is to enhance the evening economy. Although Environmental Health objected to the proposal on the grounds that it has the potential to impact on nearby residential properties, it must be recognised that the proposed use is one which is commonplace in a town centre setting where residential and commercial properties sit in close proximity to each other. With the imposition of suitably worded

Page 169

Agenda Item 10

conditions, it is considered the proposal will not have any impact over and above existing town centre uses, particularly given the reasonable hours of operation applied for. 1.2 The application is recommended for approval subject to the imposition of conditions. 2. Site and Surrounding Area 1.2 The application relates to the commercial premises 78 Hough Lane, Leyland. The property is within the Leyland Town Centre, central in a terrace of commercial properties, some with first floor residential accommodation. 1.3 Opposite are further commercial properties, to the south-west are residential properties on Alice Avenue and to the south-east are residential properties on Dorothy Avenue together with a charity advice and information centre. 3. Planning History

07/2014/0209/FUL for a single storey extension to rear was approved. 4. Proposal 4.1. The application proposes a change of use from a vacant former optician’s premises to a hot food takeaway within a Sui Generis use. There are no external building works proposed. 4.2. The proposed hours of operation are Tuesday, Wednesday and Sunday 4pm - 9:30pm; Thursday, Friday and Saturday 4pm - 10:30 with no opening on a Monday. The premises will also be closed on all Bank Holidays. 4.3. The proposal will employ 7 members of staff full time. 4.4. To the rear is an enclosed back yard which has the capacity for waste bins. 5. Summary of Publicity 6. Neighbouring properties were notified and a site notice posted with no letters of representation being received. 7. Summary of Consultations 7.1. Environmental Health initially objected to the proposed development on the grounds of insufficient information, commenting that the development has the potential to adversely affect neighbouring properties by way of noise and odour. They advised there has been no assessment of the impact from the proposed use on the neighbouring properties, specifically from the extraction system, but also from patrons, deliveries and staff. 7.2. This was raised with the applicant and details were submitted of the proposed extraction system. Environmental Health considered this and advised that an odour assessment, noise assessment and plan of where the extraction will terminate would still be required. Although an odour assessment was submitted, this was too late in the process to enable Environmental Health to fully consider it. This is discussed in more detail later in this report. 7.3. County Highways are of the opinion that proposals would not have a severe impact on highway safety or capacity within the immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, they have no objections to the application. However, they do comment that the site does not provide any off highway parking but is located within Leyland Town Centre in a highly sustainable

Page 170

location with good access to public transport and on-street parking restrictions to control parking. 8. Policy Background 8.1 Central Lancashire Core Strategy Policy 17: Design of New Buildings seeks to ensure that new development is sympathetic to surrounding land uses and occupiers and avoids demonstrable harm to the amenities of the local area and that the amenities of occupiers of the new development will not be adversely affect by neighbouring uses and vice versa. 8.2 Local Plan Policy E3: Leyland Town Centre is made up of both Primary and Secondary Retail Frontages. Within the Primary Retail Frontage, planning permission will be granted for new buildings, redevelopment of existing sites, extensions to, or change of use of existing buildings for the following uses: a) A1 (Retail Uses) which will be encouraged to achieve a minimum of 60% of the

overall units within the Primary Retail Frontage; b) A3 (Café and Restaurant) uses and A4 (Drinking Establishments) uses to enhance the

evening economy; and c) Other town centre uses including A2 (Financial and Professional Services) and B1

(Offices) will be permitted where this would not harm the sustainability of the shopping area;

d) Living accommodation or B1 (Office) use will be permitted at first floor level. The remaining area of the defined town centre is classified as the Secondary Retail Frontage. Uses in these areas will be protected and enhanced wherever possible for A1 (Retail Use), A3 (Cafés and Restaurants) and A4 (Drinking establishments) may be appropriate to maintain the vitality and viability of the area. (NB: It must be noted that a recent change to the Use Classes Order in July now means that what was formerly an A5 use, along with A4 uses, are now classed as Sui Generis.) New buildings, redevelopment of existing sites, extensions and/or change of use of existing buildings in the Town Centre will either be expected to use existing car parking facilities within the town centre or provide the appropriate level of car parking based on their location and type of development as set out in Policy F1 8.3 Policy F1: Parking Standards requires all development proposals t o provide car parking and servicing space in accordance with the parking standards adopted by the Council. In general, parking requirements will be kept to the standards as set out unless there are significant road safety or traffic management implications related to the development of the site. The parking standards should be seen as a guide for developers and any variation from these standards should be supported by local evidence in the form of a transport statement. Where appropriate, some flexibility will be factored into the standards in relation to the specific local circumstances. 9. Material Considerations 9.1. The application property is within the Secondary Retail Frontage of the Leyland Town Centre as defined by Policy E3. Uses in this area will be protected and enhanced wherever possible for A1 (Retail Use) with A3 (Cafés and Restaurants) and A4 (Drinking establishments) being considered appropriate in order to maintain the vitality and viability of the area. The proposal is for a hot food pizza takeaway which would have been a Class A5 use but following a recent change to the Use Classes Order, is now within a Sui Generis use and therefore not within the Use Classes identified as appropriate use in the Town Centre. The Local Plan is silent on the appropriateness of Class A5 uses other than reference in the supporting text to the Leyland Masterplan published in 2007 which recognises other town

Page 171

centre uses (e.g. A2, B1, A5) could be appropriate to support the overall future as a vital and viable town centre. 9.2. The overall aim of Policy E3 is to protect A1 retail uses with cafes and restaurants acting as complementary uses to the daytime shopping facilities whilst restaurants and pub establishments would support the evening economy. It is considered the proposal would support the evening economy by providing a take away service in the Town Centre which operates from 4pm until 10.30pm. 9.3. In terms of parking provision, Policy E3 requires that change of use of existing buildings in the Town Centre will either be expected to use existing car parking facilities within the town centre or provide the appropriate level of car parking based on their location and type of development as set out in Policy F1. In this case there is no dedicated parking for the premises. However, there is town centre car park just 40m to the north-east. 9.4. County Highway acknowledge that the site does not provide any off highway parking but recognised that it is located within Leyland Town Centre in a highly sustainable location with good access to public transport and on-street parking restrictions to control parking. Therefore, County Highways have no objections to the proposal. 9.5. In terms of residential amenity, it is noted that a number of commercial properties in the immediate area have first floor residential accommodation. However, from the case officer’s site visit, it appeared that the first floor accommodation was vacant and the neighbouring properties mainly had commercial use at first floor. To the south-west are residential properties on Alice Avenue and to the south-east are residential properties on Dorothy Avenue. 9.6. Environmental Health have objected on the grounds that the proposal has the potential to impact on these residential properties. They initially commented that insufficient information had been submitted and that there was no assessment of the impact from the proposed use on the neighbouring properties, specifically from the extraction system, but also from patrons, deliveries and staff. 9.7. In terms of extraction, the applicant provided details, advising that his engineer had advised that the most suitable was the SV1216CH SmartVent, canopy extraction ventilation system with a central fan, horizontally mounted and 0.12 kW. The applicant was also advised that an extractor fan/chimney was not required as they will not be using gas and will only be using small electrical appliances. 9.8. The details were forwarded to Environmental Health for further comment and they advised that an odour assessment, noise assessment and plan of where the extraction will terminate would still be required. The applicant was advised of this and provided comment. He initially advised that, at the moment there are no cooking facilities or kitchen due to not yet having planning permission. Therefore, it would be difficult for accurate assessments to be completed and that this should be done once it is known which appliances are to be installed. However, the submitted plan shows the proposed layout and includes a fryer, 4 ring cooker and a pizza oven with the extraction system overhead.

9.9. An odour assessment was then carried out and submitted and this was forwarded to Environmental Health for consideration. However, this was too late in the process to allow for Environmental Health to fully consider it before completion of this report. Any response will be reported verbally to planning committee. However, Given that the applicant has advised that final cooking facilities are yet to be decided, it is considered more appropriate to impose a condition requiring that, prior to the installation of any external plant or plant terminating externally, full details be submitted of the siting, noise levels and potential odour impact to be experienced at the nearest properties. This would ensure that any mitigation for any noise and odour from the extraction would be bespoke to the installed facilities.

Page 172

9.10. In terms of the impact from patrons, deliveries and staff, it must be recognised that the property is within the Leyland Town Centre where there are a number of similar uses and other businesses which require deliveries and have patrons and staff. All are within relatively close proximity to residential properties. For example, The Leyland Chop Suey House on the corner of Hough Lane and Alice Avenue, a residential street, five properties to the east, is open until 22:30 during the week and 23:00 on Friday and Saturdays. 9.11. Members will be aware of the recent bid for funding submitted by Leyland Town Board for Leyland town centre improvements with the aim to create “a new vibrant heart to the town and the creation of two new public spaces for Leyland as a new focus for people and events”. Included as part of these proposals, is the aim for commercial development opportunities to diversify the town centre’s offer including commercial units for food and drink and town centre living. The proposal therefore accords with the aims of the town centre improvement proposals. 10. Conclusion 10.1. Although it is recognised that the proposal has the potential to impact on neighbouring residential properties in terms of noise and odour, it is considered that it would not be appropriate to refuse planning permission for this proposal given its location within the Town Centre and the fact that similar properties operate in the area, particularly given that the hours applied for are until 21:30 during the week and 22:30 on Friday and Saturdays. These are not considered unduly anti-social hours. However, it is considered appropriate to impose a condition requiring the submission of details of any external plant prior to first use of the premises to ensure that there are no noise and/or odour issues arising from the proposed change of use. 10.2. Additionally, there is a need to support local businesses and help maintain the viability of our town and district centres. The proposal brings a currently vacant property back into use to the benefit of the town centre. For these reasons it is considered the proposal is acceptable and the application is recommended for approval subject to the imposition of conditions. 11. Recommendation 11.1 Approval with Conditions. 12. Recommended Condition 1. The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. Prior to the installation of any external plant or plant terminating externally, full details of the siting, noise levels and potential odour impact to be experienced at the nearest properties and the fixings to be used shall be provided to the local planning authority for written approval. The approved system shall then be installed as agreed and thereafter maintained as approved. Any changes to the system shall first be agreed with the local planning authority in writing. REASON: In the interests of the amenity and to safe guard the living conditions of the nearby residents in accordance with Policy 17 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy. 13 Relevant Policy South Ribble Local Plan

Page 173

E3 Leyland Town Centre Central Lancashire Core Strategy 17 Design of New Buildings

Page 174

Planning Committee Updates Sheet – 10th December 2020 Item 9 Planning application 07/2020/00850/COU - 78 Hough Lane, Leyland Additional condition: 3. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures outlined in the Odour Assessment Report, reference 4155r1 dated 24th November 2020. Within one month of premises first operating, a maintenance schedule for the change of the carbon filters shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved schedule shall be adhered to at all times thereafter. REASON: In the interests of the amenity and to safe guard the living conditions of the nearby residents in accordance with Policy 17 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy.

Page 175

Application Number 07/2020/00853/COU Address

Penwortham Arts Centre The Venue Liverpool Road Penwortham Preston Lancashire PR1 9XE

Applicant Penwortham Town Council Agent Steve Caswell

Kingsfold Community Centre Kingsfold Drive Penwortham Preston Lancashire PR1 9EQ

Development Retrospective Change of Use from Library to an Arts and Community Use Centre (Sui Generis)




Page 177

Agenda Item 11

1. Report Summary 1.1 The application is retrospective for the use of the former library building on Liverpool Road to be used for community use within a Sui Generis use class. The use commenced in September 2019 and is known as The Venue and provides a number of regular events with some additional events proposed. 1.2 The library building is outside of the Penwortham District Centre but the area is a mix of commercial and residential properties and is within the existing built-up area of Penwortham 1.3 There are no objections from consultees or residents. The proposal is considered appropriate and the application is recommended for approval subject to the imposition of conditions. 2 Site and Surrounding Area 2.1 The application relates to the former library building on Liverpool Road in Penwortham. The library closed in September 2016. The building is within the Existing Built up Area with the Penwortham District Centre lying some 70m to the west. 2.2 To the south are residential properties on Greyfriars Drive, to the south-west is a telephone exchange building with the former Government Offices site beyond. Planning permission for a new Tesco supermarket has been granted for this site and is currently under construction. To the north is a mix of residential and commercial properties on the opposite side of Liverpool Road and to the east are commercial properties within the District Centre. 3 Planning History 3.1 There is no planning history on this site. 4 Proposal 4.1 The application is retrospective for the change of use for the former library to an Arts and Community Use Centre within the Sui Generis use class. 4.2 The Arts Centre opened in September 2019 and has held regular events including adults and children’s cinema clubs, musical recitals, adults and children’s arts and craft events, history talks, poetry recitals, sing-a-longs, dance session, comedy events and performing artists on Friday or Saturday evenings. There are also a number of ad-hoc events such as art exhibitions, classical music afternoons, jazz jams and workshops. 4.3 The hours of use are 10:00am until 22:00 every day, although the building will not operate for the full extent of these hours. For example, the building is currently closed on a Monday with regular events taking place between 19:00 and 22:00 on most days. 5 Summary of Publicity 5.1 Neighbouring properties were notified and a site notice posted with one letter of representation being received from The Theatres Trust, supporting the application, commenting that the building has been vacant since the previous use ceased in 2016. Maintaining active use of this building is to be welcomed 6 Summary of Consultations 6.1 Environmental Health have reviewed the submitted noise report. They comment that the venue has the potential to generate an adverse impact on neighbouring properties

Page 178

and as such the acoustic consultants have recommended a number of mitigation measures. These have been based on the presumption that sound levels within the venue will not exceed 95dB(A). 6.2 As such, conditions are required by Environmental Health to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the Martec report ref: 20200618 8770 Penwortham PEL.docx are fully implemented and evidence of their inclusion be provided to the local planning authority. The evidence is to include details of ventilation measures to ensure windows and doors can remain closed while providing a suitable internal environment. An assessment of any external plant should also be included. 6.3 Separate conditions are also required to ensure that all doors and windows shall remain closed except for egress and ingress during periods of entertainment, music lessons or other performances; and that the venue shall not be open to the public beyond the hours of 09:00-23:00 Monday to Saturday, 09:00-21:00 on Sundays and Bank holidays.

6.4 County Highways comment based on all the information provided by the applicant to date and after undertaking a site visit. They are of the opinion that proposals would not have a severe impact on highway safety or capacity within the immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, County Highways have no objections to the application. 6.5 They also comment that the site does not provide any off-street parking but it is located within a sustainable location with public car parking in close proximity and parking restrictions in place to control on-street parking. 7 Policy Background 7.1 Central Lancashire Core Strategy Policy 12: Culture and Entertainment Facilities Plan for culture and entertainment by: a) Promoting Preston City Centre as a sub-regional centre for cultural and entertainment

facilities, with the key service centres of Leyland and Chorley providing for local cultural and entertainment requirements;

b) Protecting existing cultural assets with a view to helping them to adapt to new challenges; c) Promoting public art and public realm works in town centres and gateways and seeking

developer contribution funding where appropriate; d) Encouraging cultural and heritage based tourism and leisure facilities, such as

restaurants, cinemas, theatres and museums, particularly in Preston City Centre. Policy 17: Design of New Buildings seeks to ensure that new development is sympathetic to surrounding land uses and occupiers and avoids demonstrable harm to the amenities of the local area and that the amenities of occupiers of the new development will not be adversely affect by neighbouring uses and vice versa. 7.2 South Ribble Local Plan Policy B1: Existing Built-Up Areas permits development proposals for the re-use of undeveloped and unused land and buildings, or for redevelopment, provided that the development complies with the requirements for access, parking and servicing; is in keeping with the character and appearance of the area; and will not adversely affect the amenities of nearby residents. Policy F1: Parking Standards requires all development proposals to provide car parking and servicing space in accordance with the parking standards adopted by the Council. In general, parking requirements will be kept to the standards as set out unless there are

Page 179

significant road safety or traffic management implications related to the development of the site. The parking standards should be seen as a guide for developers and any variation from these standards should be supported by local evidence in the form of a transport statement. Where appropriate, some flexibility will be factored into the standards in relation to the specific local circumstances. Policy G17: Design Criteria for New Development permits new development, including extensions and free-standing structures, provided that, the proposal does not have a detrimental impact on the existing building, neighbouring buildings or on the street scene by virtue of its design, height, scale, orientation, plot density, massing, proximity, use of materials. Furthermore, the development should not cause harm to neighbouring property by leading to undue overlooking, overshadowing or have an overbearing effect; the layout, design and landscaping of all elements of the proposal, including any internal roads, car parking, footpaths and open spaces, are of a high quality and will provide an interesting visual environment which respects the character of the site and local area; the development would not prejudice highway safety, pedestrian safety, the free flow of traffic, and would not reduce the number of on-site parking spaces to below the standards stated in Policy F1, unless there are other material considerations which justify the reduction such as proximity to a public car park. Furthermore, any new roads and/or pavements provided as part of the development should be to an adoptable standard; the proposal would sustain, conserve and where appropriate enhance the significance, appearance, character and setting of a heritage asset itself and the surrounding historic environment. Where a proposed development would lead to substantial harm or loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, planning permission will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that the substantial public benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm or loss to the asset; and the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on landscape features such as mature trees, hedgerows, ponds and watercourses. In some circumstances where, on balance, it is considered acceptable to remove one or more of these features, then mitigation measures to replace the feature/s will be required either on or off-site.

Policy H1: Protection of Health, Education and Other Community Services and Facilities specifies that development proposing the change of use and/or loss of any premises and/or land currently/ last used as a community facility (including community centres, village and church halls, places of worship, and public houses) will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the use no longer serves the needs of the community in which it is located; or the use is no longer financially viable and it has been demonstrated through a marketing exercise or such process agreed with the Council.

8 Material Considerations 8.1 Background 8.1.1 The library service from the application building ceased in September 2016 and the building remained unused for 3 years. Penwortham Town Council then took over the building and, following an internal refurbishment, opened it as an Arts Centre known as The Venue in September 2019 with a variety of uses, including art exhibitions, history talks, history exhibitions and live events with music and poetry. This constituted a change of use of the building and an application was invited. 8.2 Compliance with Policy 8.2.1 The Theatres Trust have made representation and support the proposals commenting that the building has been vacant since the previous use ceased in 2016 and maintaining the active use of this building is to be welcomed. In terms of Local Plan Policy H1, the Trust comments that this policy manages the change of use of community facilities and seeks demonstration and evidence the existing use no longer serves the needs of the community or that it is demonstrably no longer viable. In respect of the library use, although there was opposition to its loss, this replacement facility has been provided. The arts centre

Page 180

is itself a community facility which provides a broad range of functions and therefore it can be considered that there is a net gain in local community provision. 8.2.3 Furthermore, Policy 12(d) of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy encourages cultural and leisure facilities, which would include the Arts Centre. Community and cultural facilities of this nature help bring people together and provide opportunities for engagement and participation in the arts. This in turn helps reduce isolation and improves cultural well-being. The Arts centre will also bring people into the area to the benefit of other businesses. The proposal is therefore considered to be compliant with Policy H1 and Core Strategy Policy 12. 8.2.4 In principle the new use of the building is also compliant with Policy B1 in that is re-uses a vacant building. However, the proposal must also comply with the requirements for access, parking and servicing; be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area; and not adversely affect the amenities of nearby residents and other relevant policies in the Development Plan.

8.2.5 In terms of parking and the requirements of Policy B1a) and policies F1 and G17c), it is acknowledged that there is no dedicated parking for the property. However, the site is close to the Penwortham District Centre where there is a public car park. Additionally, the Tesco Supermarket development to the south-west will also provide an element of public car parking, with condition 12 of planning approval 07/2016/1171/FUL securing the details. 8.2.6 County Highways have no objections to the proposals and consider the proposals would not have a severe impact on highway safety or capacity within the immediate vicinity of the site. However, County Highway do comment that the site does not provide any off street parking but recognise that it is located within a sustainable location with public car parking in close proximity and parking restrictions in place to control on street parking. 8.2.7 In terms of Policy B1b) relating to the character and appearance of the area, the application property is set in a mixed use area with residential and mainly commercial properties along Liverpool Road. There is no overriding style or design of buildings with some commercial properties having recently been refurbished and renovated whilst other remain as existing. No external building works are proposal and the building will remain as existing. Therefore, there will be no impact on the character and appearance of the area. 8.2.8 In terms of residential amenity and the requirements of Policy B1 c) and G17 and Core Strategy Policy 17, there are residential properties to the rear on Greyfriars Drive and immediately adjacent Liverpool Road. The venue has the potential to generate an adverse impact on neighbouring properties in terms of noise and disturbance from some of the uses. 8.2.9 A Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted with the application by Martec, Ref: 20200618 8770 Penwortham PEL which identifies a number of noise mitigation measures. These have been based on the presumption that sound levels within the venue will not exceed 95dB(A). The report recognises that, should secondary glazing to be installed levels would drop to around 40 LAeq at nearby properties which is lower than the evening background noise levels. 8.2.10 The mitigation measures recommended are that: The glazing within the entertainment space of the building should be upgraded such that secondary panes of glass, at least 6mm thick, are installed at least 150mm behind the existing glass, in heavy well-sealed frames, with absorbent material lining the side and top reveals between the inner and outer glass.

Page 181

All windows and doors on the east, south and west facades of the building remain closed during any event involving amplified music entertainment. 8.2.11 It may be necessary to arrange for suitable ventilation for the entertainment space, and any such system should not itself either create significant noise, nor should it allow significant levels of internal noise to pass through it and thereby reach residents. Alternatively, it may be possible to arrange for ventilation via the front [north] façade of the building. 8.2.12 The report concludes that, on the basis of the above recommendations, the predicted noise levels from the entertainment venue are likely to be acceptable to the nearest residents, and the noise impact should not bar the grant of planning consent for the development. 8.2.13 Environmental Health have considered the report and advise that the mitigation measure as outlined in the report must be implemented. Therefore, they require a condition be imposed to ensure the mitigation measure as outlined in the report are implemented and evidence of their inclusion is submitted to the local planning authority within 30 days of the granting of the planning permission. This should also include details of ventilation measures to ensure windows and doors can remain closed while providing a suitable internal environment. An assessment of any external plant should also be included within the submitted information. 8.2.14 Environmental Health also require that all doors and windows remain closed except for egress and ingress during periods of entertainment, music lessons or other performances and that the venue should not be open to the public outside the hours of 09:00 to 23:00 Monday to Saturday, and 09:00 to 21:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 8.2.15 The hours of use as applied for by the applicant are 10:00am until 22:00 every day, although the building will not operate for the full extent of these hours. For example, the building is currently closed on a Monday with regular events taking place between 19:00 and 22:00 on most days. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to impose the condition in line with the hours applied for, particularly given that there are only afternoon activities on Sundays and the venue is closed on Mondays. 8.2.16 It is noted that The Venue has a premises licence with the hours of opening from 08:00 and 22:30 and for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises only between noon and 22:30 but the applicant has confirmed that 10am until 10pm every day are the more suitable hours. 9 Conclusion 9.1 It is considered that the change of use of the former library building to a community venue is acceptable and with the imposition of conditions, will not unduly impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. It is recognised that the application property it close to the Penwortham District Centre, adjacent the new Tesco supermarket site and opposite a number of drinking establishments and therefore is in an area where the use will be comparable. The proposal has the additional benefit of bringing a vacant building back into use for the benefit of the wider community. Therefore, the application is recommended for approval subject to the imposition of conditions. 10 Recommendation 10.1 Approval with Conditions. 11 Recommended Conditions

Page 182

1. The premises hereby approved shall not be open to the public outside the hours as applied for of 10:00-22:00 on any day.

REASON: In the interests of the amenity of nearby residential properties in accordance with Policy 17 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy

2. All doors and windows shall remain closed except for egress and ingress during

periods of entertainment, music lessons or other performances. REASON: In the interests of the amenity of the nearby residents in accordance with

Policy 17 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy 3. The mitigation measures identified in the submitted Noise Assessment report by

Martec Environmental Consultants Ltd ref: 20200618 8770 Penwortham PEL.docx shall be fully implemented and confirmation of their inclusion shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing within 1 month of the date of the granting of the planning permission. This mitigation shall include details of ventilation measures to ensure windows and doors can remain closed while providing a suitable internal environment. An assessment of any external plant shall be included within the submitted information.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the nearby residents in accordance with Policy 17 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy

12 Relevant Policy Central Lancashire Core Strategy Policy 12: Culture and Entertainment Facilities Policy 17: Design of New Buildings South Ribble Local Plan Policy B1: Existing Built-Up Areas Policy F1: Parking Standards Policy G17: Design Criteria for New Development Policy H1: Protection of Health, Education and Other Community Services and Facilities

Page 183