“The purpose of planning is sustainable growth. Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don’t mean worse lives for future generations. Development means growth. We must accommodate the new ways in which we will earn our living in a competitive world. We must house a rising population…”
“At the heart of the [NPPF] is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For plan-making this means that: ● local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area; ● Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, 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 indicate development should be restricted…”
“Local planning authorities should have a clear understanding of housing needs in their area. They should: • prepare a [SMHA] to assess their full housing needs, working with neighbouring authorities where housing market areas cross administrative boundaries. The [SMHA] should identify the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to need over the plan period which: - meets household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change; - addresses the need for all types of housing, including affordable housing and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to) families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families (and people wishing to build their own homes); and - caters for housing demand and the scale of housing supply necessary to meet this demand...” • prepare a [SHLAA] to establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and the likely economic viability of land to meet the identified need for housing over the plan period.”
“The Local Plan will be examined by an independent inspector whose role is to assess whether the plan has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate, legal and procedural requirements, and whether it is sound. A local planning authority should submit a plan for examination which it considers is “sound” – namely that it is: • Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development; • Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence; • Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and • Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.”
“11. I would emphasise that this guidance, useful though it may be, is advisory only. Generally it appears to indicate the Department’s view of what is required to make a strategy ‘sound’, as required by the statute. Authorities and inspectors must have regard to it, but it is not prescriptive. Ultimately it is they, not the Department, who are the judges of ‘soundness’. Provided that they reach a conclusion which is not ‘irrational’ (meaning ‘perverse’), their decision cannot be questioned in the courts. The mere fact that they may not have followed the policy guidance in every respect does not make the conclusion unlawful. …. 33. … As I have said, ‘soundness’ was a matter to be judged by the inspector and the Council, and raises no issue of law, unless their decision is shown to have been ‘irrational’, or they are shown to have ignored the relevant guidance or other considerations which were necessarily material in law.”
“The Council has assessed housing land supply taking a ‘bottom-up’ approach through detailed site assessment and the [SHLAA]. It is considered that 11,000 (net) additional homes can be delivered towards meeting projected household growth of 14,000 households (2006-2028). This is the level of housing provision that the Council considers can be provided without adverse impact on the Meriden Gap, without an unsustainable short-term urban extension south of Shirley and without risking any more generalised threat to Solihull’s high quality environment. This level of growth supports the West Midlands Urban Renaissance Strategy to develop urban areas in such a way that they can increasingly meet their own economic and social needs in order to counter the unsustainable movement of people and jobs facilitated by previous strategies, including the need to direct development to those parts of the West Midlands Region needing housing.”
“The (draft) West Midlands Phase 2 Revision, containing housing provision targets per authority, concluded its Examination in Public stage at the end of June [2009] with the Panel report published on 28 September. This [SHMA] and the housing needs analysis it includes will therefore not have a bearing on the allocation of new build housing target numbers for the Authority. Instead, its primary function is to inform those parts of the housing policy framework which are to be determined through local policy setting, most notably the determination of housing need, the type and tenure of new build, the requirement for affordable housing to meet that need and inform decisions on the spatial aspect of new development.”
“The level of housing need in Solihull has been objectively assessed (considering all evidence and consistency with other policy) through the [WM RSS] Phase II Revision and was examined by the Panel. The Panel examined household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change and made recommendations to cater for housing demand and the scale of housing supply necessary to meet this demand. Sub-regional and local Strategic Housing Market Assessments address the need by type and tenure. Evidence of housing land availability was also considered by the Panel to establish realistic assumptions about availability, suitability and the likely economic viability of land in the region and each sub-region. This meets with the requirements of NPPF paragraph 159.”
“Such predictions are nothing more than a theoretical, mathematical calculation providing an indication of how housing need could change in the future. Objectively assessing need involves a more sophisticated policy analysis of both needs and what level of growth an area can realistically sustain. In Solihull, the [WM] RSS Phase II Panel Report is the latest assessment of housing need.”
“These are the most recent objectively assessed figures available”
“10. … [The Council has adopted a consistent approach, basing the SLP on the most recent independent objective assessment of housing requirements undertaken for the WM RSS Phase 2 Revision, including policy elements relating to the urban renaissance strategy and its associated distribution of development; the level of housing provision proposed in the SLP fully accords with this assessment. [The Council] has also considered the implications of more recent 2008 & 2011 household projections and undertaken further work to ensure that the proposed housing provision figure remains sound and robust. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Solihull does not intend to full meet its objectively assessed housing requirements and has thus failed to meet the requirements of the Duty to Cooperate. [In paragraph 8 of the interim conclusions, he put that point thus: ‘It cannot therefore be assumed that Solihull does not intend to fully meet its objectively assessed housing requirements and has thus failed to meet the requirements of the Duty to Cooperate.’] Detailed concerns about the overall housing provision level, including the [SHMA], are dealt with under the housing issues, later in this report.” “24. The Spatial Strategy is based on two main elements: firstly, the former WM RSS Phase 2 Revision, which established the overall scale and pattern of development in the Borough; and, secondly, the needs and opportunities identified in more recent studies through the process of preparing the SLP….”
“51. Dealing first with the overall level of housing provision, the NPPF (¶ 14/47) indicates that local plans should meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF, including development constraint policies such as the Green Belt. Although household projections are the starting point in assessing overall housing needs, they are only one element; they are a snapshot in time and, being based on demographic trends, do not model other aspects of housing need or the effective demand for homes. In establishing the appropriate level of housing provision for the area, the key drivers of housing need and demand related to demographic, economic and social factors have to be balanced alongside supply-side factors and wider national/local objectives and strategic priorities relating to sustainability, deliverability, infrastructure, viability, land availability and environmental capacity. Evidence should be relevant, robust, proportionate and up-to-date.”
“Where it would be appropriate and assist the process of preparing or amending Local Plans, regional strategy policies can be reflected in Local Plans by undertaking a partial review focusing on the specific issues involved. Local planning authorities may also continue to draw on evidence that informed the preparation of regional strategies to support Local Plan policies, supplemented as needed by up-to-date, robust local evidence.” ii) He noted that the SLP proposal of 11,000 dwellings in the period 2006-28 reflected the figure recommended in the WM RSS Phase 2 Revision Panel Draft. Although that had never been approved by the Secretary of State and the regional strategy had now been revoked, “the Panel’s assessment represents the most recent independently examined assessment of housing requirements in the West Midlands, taking account of cross-boundary housing issues and market areas, environmental capacity and the strategic housing distribution policy elements related to the urban renaissance strategy” (paragraph 52). iii) He noted that, in addition to the WM RSS Phase 2 Revision Draft recommendation, the SLP relied upon further work and evidence, including the household projections from the more recent 2008-based and 2011-based household projections, and the 2009 SHMA (paragraph 52). With regard to the CLG household projections, he noted that the 2006-based projections were for 16,000 new households in Solihull in the period 2006-26; and the 2008-based projections were for 14,000 in the period 2006-28 (paragraph 53). He noted (in paragraph 55) that some had argued that the plan should make minimum provision of 14,000 new dwellings on the basis of this projection: but this was only one projection and did not represent the objectively assessed need for housing in the borough. Finally, he noted that the latest 2011-based projections were for 6,000 households in the period 2006-21 at 533 dpa (paragraph 52), an apparent reference to the Council’s calculation, based on the 2011-based DCLG projection (see paragraphs 42-44 above). He concluded: “52. … This work confirms that the underlying housing requirement proposed in the SLP remains valid, robust and sound… 53. … Even though the former WMRSS EiP Panel report figure did not fully meet all the housing needs of Solihull at that time, more recent projections confirm that the number of new households anticipated in Solihull between 2006-28 has significantly reduced since then, and that the annual need may only be slightly above that planned for the submitted SLP.”
“62. [The Council] maintains that the SLP is fully meeting the identified housing needs of the Borough, but has considered higher levels of housing at the option stage. In considering the possibility of higher housing figures, it is important to bear in mind the significant policy constraints in Solihull, particularly the Green belt, including the strategically important Meriden Gap, and the implications of higher levels of development on the recognised environmental quality of the Borough. [The Council] proposes to amend the SLP to explain the adverse implications of higher levels of housing provision on the quality of the environment and the Green belt, particularly the Meriden Gap. This is supported by evidence, including the SHLAA and site assessments. 63. In terms of the overall housing requirement, [the Council] has taken a consistent and pragmatic approach, having produced a positively prepared and effective plan, of cross-boundary housing requirements undertaken for the former WMRSS Phase 2 Revision, and backed up with more up-to-date, robust and reliable evidence, projections and studies. The commitment to review the SLP if it becomes necessary to address the issue of Birmingham’s shortfall in future housing provision will ensure that cross-boundary housing issues are addressed when the results of these studies are finalised, reflecting the guidance of the NPPF (¶ 179). The commitment to early review of the SHMA will ensure that Solihull’s housing needs are kept up-to-date, including reviewing the SLP, if necessary. 64. Taking account of all the evidence and having examined all the elements that go into making an objective assessment of housing requirements, a total level of 11,000 dwellings or 500 dwellings/year represents an effective, justified and soundly based figure which would meet the current identified housing needs of the district over the plan period and, with the agreed amendments, is consistent with the overall requirements of national policy in the NPPF.”
“8.4.1 The housing land provision target of 11,000 net additional dwellings (2006-2028) reflects the requirement recommended by the [WM RSS] Phase II Revision Panel Report which objectively assessed housing need. Around 65% of growth is projected to emerge from net immigration into Solihull on the basis of past trends. The projected level of growth may reduce with the successful continued implementation of the West Midlands Urban Renaissance Strategy which seek to develop urban areas in such a way that they can increasingly meet their own economic and social needs in order to counter the unsustainable movement of people and jobs facilitated by previous strategies, including the need to direct development to those parts of the West Midlands Region needing housing. The Panel’s assessment of housing need took the 2006-based household projections into account. Subsequent 2008-based and interim 2011-based household projections project a lower level of household growth for Solihull, providing further confidence that the provision target mill meet need 8.4.2. Solihull is recognised for its high quality environment which attracts residents and investors to the Region. The key Regional objective of stemming out migration can be best served by preserving and enhancing Solihull’s environment. The Council is assessing housing land supply throughout the development of the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy taking a ‘bottom-up’ approach through detailed assessment and the [SHLAA]. It is considered that 11,000 (net) additional homes can be delivered towards meeting projected household growth of 14,000 households (2006-28). This is the level of housing provision that the Council considers can be provided without adverse impact on the Meriden gap, without an unsustainable short-term urban extension south of Shirley and without risking any more generalised threat to Solihull’s high quality environment…”
“9. Will data and research currently held by Regional Authority Leaders’ Boards still be available? Yes. The regional planning function of Regional LA Leaders’ Boards – the previous Regional Assemblies – is being wound up and their central government funding will end after September of this year. The planning and research they currently hold will still be available to local authorities for the preparation of their local plans whilst they put their own alternative arrangements in place for the collection and analysis of evidence…. 10. Who will determine housing numbers in the absence of Regional Strategy targets? Local planning authorities will be responsible for establishing the right level of local housing provision in their area, and identifying long term supply of housing land without the burden of regional housing targets. Some authorities may decide to retain their existing housing targets that were set out in the revoked Regional Strategies. Others may decide to review their housing targets. We would expect that those authorities should quickly signal their intention to undertake an early review so that communities and land owners know where they stand. 11. Will we still need to justify the housing numbers in our plans? Yes – it is important for the planning process to be transparent, and for people to be able to understand why decisions have been taken. Local authorities should continue to collect and use reliable information to justify their housing supply policies and defend them during the LDF examination process. They should do this in line with the current policy in PPS3. 12. Can I replace Regional Strategy targets with “option 1 numbers” [i.e. the policy on figures submitted by local authorities to the regional authorities as part of the regional process of fixing housing provision]? Yes, if that is the right thing to do for your area. Authorities may base revised housing targets on the level of provision submitted to the original Regional Spatial Strategy Examination (Option 1 targets), supplemented by more recent information as appropriate. These figures are based on assessments undertaken by local authorities. However, any target selected may be tested during the examination process especially if challenged and authorities will need to be ready to defend them.”
“[The Council] maintains that the SLP is fully meeting the identified housing needs of the Borough, but has considered higher levels of housing at the option stage.”
“… The words in [the first bullet point of paragraph 47], ‘as far as consistent with the policies set out in the Framework’ remind one that the Framework is to be read as a whole, but their specific role in that sub-paragraph seems to me to be related to the approach to be adopted in producing the Local Plan. If one looks at what is said in that sub-paragraph, it is advising local planning authorities: ‘to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework.’ That qualification contained in the last clause quoted is not qualifying housing needs. It is qualifying the extent to which the Local Plan should go to meet those needs. The needs assessment, objectively arrived at, is not affected in advance of the production of the Local Plan, which will then set the requirement figure.”
“There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Solihull does not intend to full meet its objectively assessed housing requirements …”
“It is considered that 11,000 (net) additional homes can be delivered towards meeting projected household growth of 14,000 (2006-2028).”
“Local planning authorities with Green Belts in their area should establish Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plans which set the framework for Green Belt and settlement policy. Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. At that time, authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period.”
“When local authorities prepare new or revised structure and local plans, any proposals affecting Green Belts should be related to a time-scale which is longer than that normally adopted for other aspects of the plan. They should satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period. In order to ensure protection of Green Belts within this timescale, this will in some cases mean safeguarding land between the urban area and the Green Belt which may be required to meet longer-term development needs…. In preparing and reviewing their development plans authorities should address the possible need to provide safeguarded land. They should consider the broad location of anticipated development beyond the plan period, its effects on urban areas contained by the Green Belt and on areas beyond it, and its implication for sustainable development…”
“B2. Safeguarded land comprises areas and sites which may be required to serve development needs in the longer term, i.e. well beyond the plan period. It should be genuinely capable of development when needed. B3. Safeguarded land should be located where future development would be an efficient use of land, well integrated with existing development, and well related to public transport and other existing and planned infrastructure, so promoting sustainable development. B4. In identifying safeguarded land local planning authorities should take account of the advice on housing in PPG3 and on transport in PPG13…. B5. Development plans should clearly state the policies applying to safeguarded land over the period covered by the plan. They should make clear that the land is not allocated for development at the present time, and keep it free to fulfil its purpose of meeting possible longer-term development needs…. B6. Development plan policies should provide that planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following a local plan or UDP review which proposes the development of particular areas of safeguarded land. Making safeguarded land available for permanent development in other circumstances would thus be a departure from the plan.”
“Given the current adequacy of housing land supply, both within the Plan period and beyond, and bearing in mind the permanent nature of the established Green Belt boundaries, I cannot see any general justification for identifying further safeguarded land. This would require amendments to existing Green Belt boundaries which, in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, could not be justified in terms of current national policy or the latest regional strategy. Similarly, since these sites have been removed from the Green Belt relatively recently, after a thorough debate at two UDP inquiries, there would have to be some very special circumstances to justify their re-inclusion in the Green Belt. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, ad hoc amendments to the Green belt boundary to either allocate additional or alternative long-term housing sites, to remove existing safeguarded sites, would undermine the integrity and enduring nature of the existing Green Belt boundary established in the adopted UDP. Furthermore, any loss of the Green Belt land without directly supporting urban regeneration would be contrary to the latest regional spatial strategy. Consequently, I can see no general justification for any changes to existing Green Belt boundaries, and these matters are best addressed on a site-by-site basis.”
“… amending the text accompanying Policy H2 to confirm that, although these sites have been removed from the Green Belt and safeguarded to meet longer term housing needs, no decision has yet been taken on the positive allocation of any of these sites for housing, and that they are not intended as ‘reserve’ housing sites in the event of shortfalls in housing land supply;” and … subject to the Council’s priorities in undertaking a review of this UDP Review…, priority be given to assessing the suitability of safeguarded land for housing against current national policy and the latest regional strategy, along with an assessment of longer term housing land supply, housing strategies and potential housing sites, to inform the next review of this UDP.” … subject to the Council’s priorities in undertaking a review of this UDP Review…, priority be given to assessing the suitability of safeguarded land for housing against current national policy and the latest regional strategy, along with an assessment of longer term housing land supply, housing strategies and potential housing sites, to inform the next review of this UDP.”
“The Council will identify sites to help to meet long-term (i.e. post-2011) housing needs. In areas excluded from the Green Belt for this purpose, strong development control measures will apply limiting any development on the land only to uses which would: (i) Be allowed in the Green Belt under Policy C2; (ii) Not prejudice the long-term use of the site for housing. The possible future designation of the land for housing will be determined through subsequent reviews of the [UDP].”
“There is also serious concern about the proposed return to the Green belt of some Safeguarded land previously identified in the [UPD]. However, when the [UDP] was examined, it was made clear that the status of this land should be reviewed in the context of the approved and emerging WM RSS strategy for urban renaissance. [The Council] undertook this review, and rejected the future development of sites at Tidbury Green because this settlement lacks the range of facilities necessary for further strategic housing growth, the scale of development envisaged would also be far too large to meet local housing needs and would threaten the coalescence with other settlements, including Grimes Hill. National policy enables reviews of the Green Belt to be undertaken (NPPF ¶ 84), including considering the need to promote sustainable development, and it is clear from [the Council’s] evidence that these sites would not meet this objective. These factors constitute legitimate reasons and represent the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify returning these sites to the Green Belt.”
“When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development…”
“I do not find in either of these decisions any clearcut ruling that if a council making a new green belt local plan is concerned with white unallocated land on the edge of the green belt in an earlier plan it must find that exceptional circumstances exist before it can alter the green belt boundary at this point. The decision of the Court of Appeal in the Carpets of Worth case shows that a local authority must have regard to Government green belt policies in… PPG2, but if it concerned with white unallocated land I can see no reason why in the exercise of its discretion it should not make a very clear finding, on green belt policy grounds, why the uncertainties which had existed when the previous plan was made have now been resolved, and why it should not in those circumstances determine to bring the land into green belt now without being out into the strait jacket of having to decide whether circumstances which can properly be described as exceptional exist. The duty of a council pursuant to section 36 of the 1990 Act is to have regard to Government policy. Provided that it has regard to it it is entitled to depart from it so long as it gives adequate reasons for doing so: see Carpets of Worth.”
“I would hold that the requisite necessity in a PPG 2 paragraph 2.7 case like the present – where the revision proposed is to increase the Green Belt – cannot be adjudged to arise unless some fundamental assumption which caused the land initially to be excluded from the Green Belt is thereafter clearly and permanently falsified by a later event. Only then could the continuing exclusion of the land from the Green Belt properly be described as ‘an incongruous anomaly’”
“… Both sites are well-contained and the Green Belt boundary remains firm and well-defined. There is no erosion of the gap between Solihull and Redditch and, given the retention of Green Belt around Grimes Hill in Bromsgrove DC, no risk of coalescence with this settlement…”. b) Selsdon Close was not in the Green Belt, and possible future development must have been contemplated in 2005. c) The grant of planning permission for Selsdon Close was not referred to by the Inspector in his SLP report as a change in circumstances sufficient to support the justification of a change in Green Belt boundary (or, indeed, referred to at all). In short, there has been no change in circumstances since 2005: the Inspector – the same inspector – appears simply to have taken a different planning view of the adverse impact of coalescence between Tidbury Hill and Grimes Hill. ii) The land at Norton Lane was in the Green Belt in 2005, and, since then, housing development on that site has been refused on Green Belt grounds. That is unsurprising. That development control decision was presumably made in the knowledge that the Sites are white unallocated land. Again, no reference to the Norton Lane site is made by the Inspector in his SLP Report; but, in any event, it is difficult to see how the refusal of planning permission for that Green Belt site could support justification for a change in the Green Belt boundary. The reasons for the refusal of permission merely stressed the importance of the Green Belt in this area. That does not support a contention that the allocation of further land into the Green Belt is justified on grounds of exceptional circumstances. iii) Planning permission had been refused for the Lowbrook Farm site in January 2013, as it conflicted with the SLP spatial strategy, the land not being within a village identified for strategic housing growth. I do not see how this can possibly justify a change in the Green Belt boundary. Planning permission was refused on the basis of a conventional planning balance, the land being white unallocated land with the policy restrictions in Policy HS5 I have described (see paragraph 119 above), and the policy factors from the spatial strategy being sufficient to outweigh the factors in favour of development. This simply shows the planning system functioning as it should. iv) The development of the Sites would be out of proportion to the existing settlement, and would completely dominate it. This is the only point relied upon by the Council that concerns Green Belt factors. However, the position with regard to the sites and the settlement of Tidbury simply has not materially changed since 1997. v) The Council also rely on the fact that, as envisaged in the 2005 review, the suitability of the Sites for housing was assessed through the SHLAA, which concluded that they did not meet the minimum criteria for access to key services and were unsuitable to meet identified local housing needs. The Tidbury Green Farm was also considered to have “unacceptable impact on green belt functions and openness”
“… Following assessment in the [SHLAA], this land is no longer considered suitable for development and is proposed to be returned to the Green Belt.”