SPATIAL POLICY TEAM RESPONSE 

Area	Central East	
Case Officer	Christopher Baxter	
Application No.	DM/15/03779/FPA	
Report Prepared By	M Lowe	
Date	24th May 2016	

Site Address	Land Adjoining Snook Acres Front Street Witton Gilbert 	
Proposal	Revised Submission: Erection of  14 no. residential properties, associated highways and landscaping works	

1.	Scope of this response

This response relates to the compatibility of the proposed development with the key planning policies relevant to this proposal. It response does not seek to provide specific views on more detailed site specific matters such as highways, ecology, heritage and landscape.  Such views should be sought from the relevant discipline.  

2.	Existing Planning Policy Context

From a planning policy perspective in considering this proposal due regard must be had to the requirements of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the statutory development plan, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. In this part of County Durham, the statutory development plan currently comprises the ‘saved’ elements of the City of Durham Local Plan (CDLP), the County Durham Minerals Local Plan and the County Durham Waste Local Plan. A consistency assessment has been carried out on these policies against NPPF.  In accordance with Paragraph 215 of NPPF due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given).

Due regard should also be had to relevant parts of the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) as material considerations. In conjunction with these material considerations regard should also continue to be had to the most up to date relevant spatial policy evidence base.

Paragraph 216 of the NPPF says that decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF.  The County Durham Plan (CDP) was submitted for Examination in Public and a stage 1 Examination concluded.  An Interim Report was issued by an Inspector dated 18 February 2015, however that report was quashed by the High Court following a successful Judicial Review challenge by the Council.   In accordance with the High Court Order, the Council has withdrawn the CDP and a new plan being prepared. In the light of this, policies of the CDP can no longer carry any weight. As the new plan progresses through the stages of preparation it will begin to accrue weight.

3.	Status of saved policies

Despite the age of the Local Plan, recent case law has confirmed that this does not automatically render the ‘saved’ policies to be ‘out of date’.  Having regard to NPPF and recent case law it is considered that policies can become ‘out of date’ under the following circumstances:

•	In the case of housing land supply policies only where a Local Planning Authority is unable to demonstrate a 5 year Housing Land Supply (ref Paragraph 49 of NPPF) and/or
•	The policy is time limited and is based upon evidence which is clearly out of date (ref paragraph 211 of NPPF) and/or
•	The policy is inconsistent with NPPF/ PPG (ref Paragraph 215 of NPPF).
 
(Note: one or more of these circumstances may apply at a particular point in time.)
Where relevant policies are out of date the 2 limbed test set out in Paragraph 14 of NPPF is engaged, namely:

‘…granting 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: 
or 
Specific policies in this Framework (NPPF) indicate the development should be restricted.’ 

The status of the main relevant policies in this case are as follows:

E7: Development outside of settlement limits – This policy is generally consistent

E18: Sites of Nature Conservation Importance - The principles of this saved policy are consistent with both NPPF and PPG. However the exceptions test set out in paragraph 118 of NPPF differs and should take precedence over that set out in the saved policy.

H5: New housing in the countryside – Whilst the objectives of this policy accord with NPPF and PPG it is only partially consistent as it does not allow for the full range of circumstances set out in paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

Q1, Q2, Q6 & Q8: Accessibility, layout and Design – these policies are in the main consistent with the NPPF & PPG.  However, Q8 while broadly consistent may be overly prescriptive in some instances.  

Paragraph 14 of NPPF provides that where the relevant policies are out of date, there is then a presumption in favour of granting planning permission for sustainable development. Whether planning permission should be granted in a particular case however depends on the outcome of a balancing exercise to be carried out in accordance with the last bullet point in Paragraph 14 which contains the two separate ‘limbs’ quoted above. The effect of these has been considered recently by Coulson J in the Forest of Dean case. At Paragraph 47 of his judgment he held that:

“The last bullet point in Paragraph 14 meant that the presumption in favour of planning permission was to be disapplied in two separate situations. Both limbs had to be considered. In this case, because of the harm to the designated heritage assets, Limb 2 fell to be considered first. The appropriate test was the ordinary (unweighted) balancing exercise envisaged by the words in Paragraph 134.”

Furthermore, when the planning balance is undertaken it is be noted, as the Court of Appeal held in the Richborough case , that the “out of date” policies are not to be regarded as irrelevant, but should be brought into the balance and given such weight as the decision maker considers appropriate.

4.	Neighbourhood Planning Context

Witton Gilbert Parish Council is developing a neighbourhood plan and the application site is located within the designated Witton Gilbert Neighbourhood Area.  As a part of the proposed neighbourhood plan the area of undeveloped land located between Front Street and the A691 bypass is being considered as a possible housing allocation to be characterised by traditional low density layout, public open spaces & large gardens. With the above in mind the production of the neighbourhood plan is being informed by a ‘Residential Visioning Exercise’ commissioned by the Parish Council which sets out a cohesive vision / approach for this area to the south of Front Street requiring that any development has reference to the local vernacular in terms of local grain, scale, design and materials, with appropriate landscaping to mitigate impact in the wider context.  The proposal subject of this planning application is for a small section of the whole site being considered as part of the proposed neighbourhood plan.  However, this amended planning application is still not consistent with the ‘Residential Visioning Exercise’ for reasons of design, layout, scale, massing, density, connectivity, permeability, access and landscaping amongst other issues.  

5.	Summary of key planning policies, guidance and evidence relevant to this proposal

Source	Key Policy Refs.	
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)	Notably Paragraphs: 216, 14, 56-8, 126, 131, 47, 50 & 159	
Planning Policy Guidance (PPG)		
City of Durham Local Plan 	E7: Development outside of settlement limits
E18: Sites of Nature Conservation Importance
H5: New housing in the countryside
Q1, Q2, Q6 &Q8: Accessibility, layout and Design 	
Other Background Documents/ evidence	County Durham Settlement Study
Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)	

6.	Summary of the key planning policy considerations 

I consider that the key planning policy consideration to be whether the proposed housing development represents sustainable development and is acceptable in this location in terms of suitability of the site for residential development in the context of whether the proposed development is consistent with Government planning for housing policy objectives set out in the NPPF, with particular regard towards delivering a wide choice of high quality homes, which widens opportunities for home ownership and helps create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.

7.	Detailed policy analysis

Assessing the scheme against Local Plan Policies

The greenfield site comprises of a 0.54ha triangular parcel of land currently used as a paddock located adjacent to the existing built up form of Witton Gilbert but outside the settlement limit on the western edge of Witton Gilbert.  It is bounded to the north by the B6312 highway (Front Street) which separates the site from a row of housing, to the south the site is bounded by the A691 highway (bypass) which separates it from land in agricultural use. To the east the site is adjoined by the paddock attached to Snook Acres which is a dwelling fronting on to Front Street.  The site forms an attractive gateway to the settlement to those travelling from the west. The main changes to the proposal for residential development relate to the location of car parking and reduction in the number of units from 19 to 14.    

As identified above, the site is outside of the settlement boundary. Policies E7 and H5 recognise that development outside of limits will be regarded as development within the countryside and therefore other than specifically allowed by other policies; development in the countryside will not be approved. 

Policies E7 and H5 essentially seek to contain development within existing built-up areas to prevent sprawl into the open countryside.  However, housing supply policies within the CDLP are not based on an up-to-date Objectively Assessed Need (OAN).  Therefore, housing supply policies within the CDLP which include policy E7 do not reflect an up to date objective assessment of need (OAN). Further, Policy H5 considers New Housing in the Countryside and whilst applicable in relation to isolated dwellings (which is consistent with the NPPF), when considered in the light of the settlement boundary policy being out of date also has to be considered out of date when relating to this development which cannot be considered isolated. 

Therefore the settlement boundary policy is considered out of date, in accordance with para 49 of the NPPF and should be afforded only limited weight regardless of the 5 year housing land position. With this in mind guidance in the NPPF (para 14) states development should be directed to suitable and sustainable locations and that permission should be granted “unless any adverse impacts of so doing would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of this Framework (NPPF) taken as a whole..”.  

This is given some qualification in accordance with the findings of the Richborough case, however, which states that: 

“There will be many cases, no doubt, in which restrictive policies, whether general or specific in nature, are given sufficient weight to justify the refusal of planning permission, despite their not being up-to-date under the policy in paragraph 49 in the absence of a five–year supply of housing land”

Policies E7 and H5 are considered to fit into this category.  Whilst they impact on housing supply through their role in reinforcing settlement limits, they do have a wider remit of protecting the countryside from development that will be harmful to it.  In that context they are considered broadly consistent with the NPPF (para. 55).  They also help to promote more sustainable forms of development.  Therefore, this means that not all development on the edge of settlements should be recommended for approval. 

Turning to the Housing Land Supply Position the NPPF seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing and deliver a wide choice of high quality homes.  Local planning authorities (LPAs) should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their requirements with an additional buffer of 5% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.  Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, LPAs should increase the buffer to 20% to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.  

The housing evidence upon which the Local Plan housing supply policies are based pre-dates its adoption in December 2001.  The Council has assessed the housing requirement set out in the Local Plan and accepts that it is out of date and should be given no weight.  In light of the recent withdrawal of the emerging County Durham Plan (CDP) it is the Council’s view that the housing requirement of that emerging plan (1,651 per annum) is also no longer relevant and should be given no weight.  Furthermore, with the quashing of the Inspector’s Interim Report on the CDP, the housing figure advanced by the Inspector (1,435 per annum) is no longer relevant either and cannot be given any weight as a requirement figure.  

As a consequence the Council accepts that it is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites based on the objectively assessed needs of the area (OAN), in accordance with paragraph 47 of the NPPF. Consequently, paragraph 49 indicates that the policies are to be regarded as ‘not up to date’ or, as paragraph 14 of the NPPF states, out of date.  

In the light of the recent Court of Appeal judgment in the Richborough case, policies which restrict the locations where new housing may be developed are to be regarded as policies for the supply of housing for the purposes of paragraph 49 of the NPPF.

In the absence of OAN which can be attributed weight, the guidance within the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) is relevant: 

 ‘Where evidence in Local Plans has become outdated and policies in emerging plans are not yet capable of carrying sufficient weight, information provided in the latest full assessment of housing needs should be considered. But the weight given to these assessments should take account of the fact they have not been tested or moderated against relevant constraints.  Where there is no robust recent assessment of full housing needs, the household projections published by the Department for Communities and Local Government should be used as the starting point, but the weight given to these should take account of the fact that they have not been tested (which could evidence a different housing requirement to the projection, for example because past events that affect the projection are unlikely to occur again or because of market signals) or moderated against relevant constraints (for example environmental or infrastructure).’ (PPG Revision date: 06 03 2014 Paragraph: 031 Reference ID: 3-031-20140306)

The household projections published by the DCLG give a starting point for a housing requirement per annum. When calculating the five year requirement on this basis, the under delivery which has occurred in previous years and the appropriate buffer required as a consequence of any under delivery have been applied to the appropriate 5 year DCLG projection figure.  The Council has calculated the supply position in the absence of an OAN and this demonstrates the existence of supply of deliverable housing in excess of 5 years.  

In undertaking this assessment the Council fully recognises that the DCLG requirement figure referred to above cannot be regarded as representing the OAN as it does not take into account market signals, and nor has it been publicly tested.  However, it is considered that this serves as a ‘proxy’, providing a context to quantify the supply position. The exercise indicates that there is no pressing need to support unsustainable housing proposals, where adverse impacts may be considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of an additional contribution to the housing supply.  

It is identified in the SHLAA (reference 4/WG/02) with significant issues relating to the Sacriston Subglacial Channels and proximity to the A691 bypass. In regards to the bypass comments from DCC Environmental Health should be sought as previous schmes for this area have raised concerns regarding noise from the adjacent bypass.  In terms of accessibility Witton Gilbert is regarded as a medium size village which contains a limited range of services and facilities including a primary school, community centre, a local store (opening 6am to 10pm most days) and a couple of pubs. 

In regards to design the NPPF states (paragraph 56) that good design is indivisible from good planning and sets out, at paragraphs 57-8, the criteria against which design should be assessed.  NPPF paragraphs 126 and 131 state that Local Planning Authorities should consider the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Given that the site forms an important ‘gateway’ to the settlement, and the proximity of a listed building, the views of opinion of DCC Design and Conservation as well as DCC Landscape will be important to determine the acceptability of the proposal. 

The provision of affordable housing where a need has been identified is encouraged through the NPPF (Para’s 47, 50, and 159) which also requires a range of dwelling types and sizes, including affordable housing to deliver the sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. The County Durham Strategic Housing Market Assessment update (SHMA) supports a need for affordable housing across the Central Durham Delivery Area (interpreted as 20% on sites of 15 dwellings/0.5 hectares or more), while the NPPF (Paragraph 159) makes plain the importance of the SHMA in setting targets. It is noted that the proposal offers 3no. affordable units and as such would be broadly in conformity with the requirements. 

The proposal is upon land that is identified at CDLP Policy E18 as a locally important geological and geomorphological site. Policy E18 does not prevent development on the designated area, subject to assessing the benefits, but the comments of specialist colleagues should advise on this matter. 

8.	Conclusion 

Whilst the proposal has been amended I still consider that the main planning issues remain the same as before.

In view of the CDLP settlement boundary policies being out of date, and a lack of a five year housing supply, no real weight can be ascribed to the boundary.  As such NPPF para 14 applies. 

Development of the site would provide some benefits.  In economic terms, these include supporting employment in the construction and development process as well as in helping to sustain local services.  It will also provide an element of affordable housing.  

However balancing against the above benefits, this site forms a prominent and attractive gateway and setting to the village therefore any development would require high quality design and landscaping as required by the NPPF. Development should respect the scale and form of the settlement and integrate with the village for example in the direction suggested by the ‘Residential Visioning Exercise’ which is informing the development of the Witton Gilbert Neighbourhood Plan with a comprehensive approach to development south of Front Street.  Para 64 of the NPPF suggests that development of poor design that fails to take opportunities for improving the character and quality of an area should be resisted. With this in mind, notwithstanding the amendments, comments from DCC Landscape along with DCC Conservation & Design will be crucial in determining the acceptability of the proposal. Potential harm to the local geological and geomorphological interest also needs to be weighed in the balance as a disbenefit, subject to specialist views on the matter.