“Recommendation is not accepted. The site was assessed as part of the comparative assessment of potential alternative locations. While it is relatively well located in relation to local facilities, it is remote from the centre of Cheltenham. The Inspector advised the Council to consider the implications for Bishops Cleeve of RPG10’s reference in paragraph 3.11 to development related to the Principal Urban Areas leaping the Green Belt to nearby commuter towns. This issue has acquired added weight following publication of the EIP Panel’s Report on the Gloucestershire Structure Plan Third Review. The Panel concluded that there was a need to move away from past patterns of development, and that Bishops Cleeve should be excluded from the PUA (recommendation 6.8). In their view, the only potential for further strategic growth at Bishops Cleeve would be if a decision was taken to review the Green Belt to the south, thus opening the way for development between the PUA and Bishops Cleeve. Given a strategy of focussing development in sustainable locations well related to the Principal Urban Areas and thereby creating a sustainable framework which would set the context for future development, strategic scale sites adjacent to the northern edge of Bishops Cleeve do not score as well as other potential locations. It is therefore concluded that major development allocations are not appropriate to the settlement of Bishops Cleeve, where housing growth should be limited to smaller scale sites designed to meet local needs. The allocation of the Homelands Farm site would therefore constitute unsustainable leapfrogging of the Green Belt.”
“5.14. The Claimant objected to the first Proposed Modifications, in particular the Council’s new strategy identified for the first time in the Proposed Modifications of allocating sites in the Green Belt for housing. The Claimant, inter alia, requested a further public inquiry be held because it had not had the opportunity to object to the Green Belt sites during the local plan inquiry”
“The site sustainability assessment was only intended to provide a broad indication of relative sustainability. The shadings were used to provide a visual impression of relative weighting – a rigid system of weighting criteria/ranking of sites would not provide a better understanding. The Green Belt status of sites was indicated as part of the strategic location category. The sites selection process considered realistic alternative locations taking into account the advanced stage of the local plan process and the Inspector’s recommendations – it was not appropriate to widen the assessment to include other sites, and it is not accepted that additional criteria were needed. The site sustainability assessment was just one element taken into account on the Site Selection Process which followed guidance set out in PPG3 – other factors included infrastructure capacity and the ability to build communities.”
“The phasing arrangements including in HOU1 in respect of the BA1 and SD2 sites [M&G and Shurdington] have been included at the request of GOSW in accordance with Government Policy of plan monitor and manage. These sites were already phased to the period 2007/2011 in the Local Plan, their linkage to the RSS process will ensure that the implementation of the local plan will not prejudice the emerging RSS strategy.”
“Land is identified to accommodate up to 3579 dwellings 01.01.2003 to 30.06.2011 as defined on the proposals map. The distribution of dwellings between the identified sites is as follows……..”
“…two sites – BA1 and SD2 (M & G and Shurdington) are phased to the latter part of the plan period 2007-2011. Planning permission will not be granted for development of the BA1 site in advance of a comprehensive review of the Green Belt as required by RPG10, planning permission will not be granted for development of the SD2 site prior to its identification as an appropriate location for strategic development through the RSS process.”
“3.11 ……. Gloucester and Cheltenham are partly or wholly surrounded by Green Belt. Some growth relating to these PUA appears to have been leaping the Green Belt to nearby community towns, leading less sustainable patterns of development and travel. The purposes of Green Belt policy (as set in PPG2) remain an essential part of RPG for the South West. However the need to ensure that future patterns of development are more sustainable means that the boundaries of these Green Belts should be reviewed in the next round of structure plan.”
“Site allocation development plan documents should always include at least five years of supply of land for development from the date they are adopted. The five years supply should be allocated land that is developable, taking account of a windfall allowance where this is appropriate (see paragraph 14). To be considered developable, a site should meet the following criteria: (a) available – the site is available now or is likely to become available for housing development and be capable of being developed within five years. This means five years from the date of adoption of site allocation development plan document; (b) suitable – the site offers a sustainable option for development and would contribute to the creation of sustainable urban and rural communities; (c) viable – housing development is economically viable on the site.” (a) available – the site is available now or is likely to become available for housing development and be capable of being developed within five years. This means five years from the date of adoption of site allocation development plan document; (b) suitable – the site offers a sustainable option for development and would contribute to the creation of sustainable urban and rural communities; (c) viable – housing development is economically viable on the site.”
“There are no other suitable sites available at this stage which will accommodate these 360 dwellings…….The various sites mentioned by objectors as other suitable locations in which to put the development are bound up with future processes such as the probable disposal of RAF Insworth (which may take place after 2008) or the Regional Spatial Strategy which will involve a review of Green Belt in order to identify major strategic growth locations for the period 2026. The RSS is unlikely to be adopted before mid 2007. None of these dates are early enough to provide options for delivering housing allocated for the period to 2011.”
“It was not an option to fall short.”
“The site is immediately adjacent to the part of the Cheltenham built-up area (Brizen Lane). There is also an area of unallocated land adjacent to the site, however the policy makes the relationship clear. The emerging RSS does identify a non-green belt site on the southern edge of Cheltenham for 1,000 dwellings, half in Cheltenham and half in Tewkesbury Borough, so there are reasonable expectations that the site will come forward and that it would be developed on a joint basis by the two authorities.”
“The difficulty arises in determining whether the reasons given are adequate, whether, in the words of Megaw J (in Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration(1954) 2 QB 467 ) they deal with the substantial points that have been raised or in the words of Phillips J in Hope v Secretary of State for the Environment 31P&CR 120, 123, enable the reader to know what conclusion the decision maker has reached on the principal controversial issues. What degree of particularity is required? It is tempting to think that the Court of Appeal or your Lordships’ House would be giving helpful guidance by offering a general answer to this question and thereby “setting the standards” but I feel no doubt that the temptation should be resisted, precisely because the Court has no authority to put a gloss on the words of the statute, only to construe them. I do not think one can safely say more in general terms than that the degree of particularity required will depend entirely on the nature of the issues falling to decisions. Whatever may be the position in any other legislative context, under the planning legislation, when it comes to deciding any particular case whether the reasons given are deficient, the question is not to be answered in vacuo. The alleged deficiency will only afford a ground for quashing the decision if the Court is satisfied that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by it. This reinforces the view I have already expressed that the adequacy of reasons is not to be judged by reference to some abstract standards. There are in truth not two separate questions: (1) were the reasons adequate? (2) if not, were the interests of the applicant substantially prejudiced thereby? The single indivisible question, in my opinion, which the Court must ask itself whenever a planning decision is challenged on the ground of a failure to give reasons is whether the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by the deficiency of the reasons given. Here, again, I disclaim any intention to put a gloss on the statutory provisions by attempting to define or delimit the circumstances in which deficiency of reasons will be capable of causing substantial prejudice, but I should expect that normally such prejudice will arise from one of three causes. First, there will be substantial prejudice to a developer whose application has been refused or to an opponent to the development when permission has been granted when the reasons for the decision are so inadequately or obscurely expressed as to raise substantial doubt whether the decision was taken within the powers of the Act. Secondly, a developer whose application for permission is refused may be substantially prejudiced where the planning considerations on which the decision is based are not explained sufficiently clearly to enable him reasonably to assess the prospect of succeeding in an application for some alternative form of development. Thirdly, an opponent of development, whether the local planning authority or some unofficial body like Save, may be substantially prejudiced by a decision to grant permission in which the planning considerations on which the decision is based, particularly if they relate to planning policy, are not explained sufficiently clearly to indicate what, if any, impact they may have in relation to the decision of future applications.”
“The Council were required to make their decision in light of the Inspector’s report and recommendation and to give reasons for their decision. It was incumbent upon the Council, in my view, to demonstrate that minds had been applied to the Inspector’s report, the recommendations and findings which led to it. Specific consideration of his findings was required. In their remarks the council recite a series of assertions as to why it was necessary, in their view, to apply policy L3 to the site. One of the remarks, that in relation to views within the area itself, actually conflict with the concession which the inspector records the council having made at the inquiry. The council ignore the entirety of the inspectors’ findings and make no attempt to deal with them. In my judgment they have failed to deal with the substantial points raised by the independent Inspector. They do not either express reasons for disagreeing with his findings or give a reasoned explanation for ignoring them in favour of other considerations which they consider important. In the context of the statutory procedure for an adoption of a local plan, the failure is a substantial flaw in the decision- making process. The owners are substantially prejudiced in that they were entitled to expect that the Inspector’s findings would be considered and reasons given for departing from them before a decision was taken to subject their land to policy L3.”
“The effect of abandoning the Review is that the Adopted Structure Plan Second Review remains the “saved”
“North of Bishop’s Cleeve was rejected by the EIP panel and GCC as being part of the Cheltenham PUA.”
“Furthermore, it is George Wimpey’s request that the Proposed Modifications should be subject to a re-opening of the Tewkesbury Local Plan Inquiry in order to thoroughly examine this major and inappropriate shift in the local plan’s strategy which is contrary to PPG2 and to the Structure Plan.”
“No need to re-open the inquiry as issues already addressed.”
“The fact that a proposed modification involves issues which have not previously been subject to consideration at the deposit stage could be a highly material consideration in determining whether or not a further inquiry should be held. Considerations that will generally be material to that decision would include: (1) whether or not the issues raised have been previously subject to independent scrutiny by an inspector so as to provide independent evaluation of the opposing contentions; (2) the current advice (PPG12); (3) the practical implications of a second inquiry and in particular whether it would potentially be of material benefit to the decision making process; (4) delay and the desirability of securing an up-to-date adopted development plan; and (5) fairness to the objector and other parties; as with all decisions of this kind, the determination whether or not to hold a further inquiry should seek to achieve fairness, balancing the interest of all relevant parties …..”
“A balance clearly had to be struck in this decision between the limited benefit to the Claimant, and to the decision making process generally, of raising its concerns at an inquiry rather in written representations to TBC (the Defendant) and the countervailing factors pressing upon TBC to continue progressing the TBLP [The Plan] (including fairness to all other parties involved). In this context, TBC’s decision not to hold a second inquiry was an entirely reasonable one and it cannot be said that the matters that the Claimant raised could not be reasonably be viewed as being suitable for consideration for written representations.”