“6. The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system. 7. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles: ● an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; ● a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and ● an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.” “The presumption in favour of sustainable development 11. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 12. This National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place. 13 …… 14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework 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.” (A footnote (9) gives as examples policies relating to Habitat Directives, designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest, designated Green Belts, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coasts, National Parks, designated heritage assets or areas at risk of flooding or coastal erosion) For decision-taking this means”: (“unless material considerations indicate otherwise” appears in a footnote) “● approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and ● where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting 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 indicate development should be restricted. (Reference is again made to footnote (9)) 15. Policies in Local Plans should follow the approach of the presumption in favour of sustainable development so that it is clear that development which is sustainable can be approved without delay. All plans should be based upon and reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development, with clear policies that will guide how the presumption should be applied locally.” “Core planning principles 17. Within the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play, a set of core land-use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. These 12 principles are that planning should: • be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area. Plans should be kept up-to-date, and be based on joint working and co-operation to address larger than local issues. They should provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency; • …….. • …….. • …….. • take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it; • ……. • contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework; • …….. • …….. • …….. • …….. • ……..” ● an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; ● a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and ● an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.” “The presumption in favour of sustainable development 11. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 12. This National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place. 13 …… 14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework 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.” (A footnote (9) gives as examples policies relating to Habitat Directives, designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest, designated Green Belts, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coasts, National Parks, designated heritage assets or areas at risk of flooding or coastal erosion) For decision-taking this means”: (“unless material considerations indicate otherwise” appears in a footnote) “● approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and ● where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting 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 indicate development should be restricted. (Reference is again made to footnote (9)) 15. Policies in Local Plans should follow the approach of the presumption in favour of sustainable development so that it is clear that development which is sustainable can be approved without delay. All plans should be based upon and reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development, with clear policies that will guide how the presumption should be applied locally.” “Core planning principles 17. Within the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play, a set of core land-use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. These 12 principles are that planning should: • be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area. Plans should be kept up-to-date, and be based on joint working and co-operation to address larger than local issues. They should provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency; • …….. • …….. • …….. • take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it; • ……. • contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework; • …….. • …….. • …….. • …….. • ……..” 9. Chapter 6 deals with “Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes.”
“6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 47. To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should: • use their evidence base 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, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period; • identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land (a footnote adds “To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans” • identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 (a footnote adds “To be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.” • for market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing describing how they will maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target; and • set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances. 48 ……. 49 Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. 50. To deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, local planning authorities should: • plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends 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); • identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand; and • where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified (for example to improve or make more effective use of the existing housing stock) and the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities. Such policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time.” 10. Section 11 of the NPPF deals with “Conserving and enhancing the natural environment”
“109. The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: • protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils; • …… • ……. • …….. • ……. 110. In preparing plans to meet development needs, the aim should be to minimise pollution and other adverse effects on the local and natural environment. Plans should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework. 113. Local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting protected wildlife or geodiversity sites or landscape areas will be judged…………. 115. Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads.” • protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils; • …… • ……. • …….. • ……. 11. Annex 1 to NPPF deals with “Implementation.”
“The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the landscape 6. ‘Saved’ Policies RES5 and NE5 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001, which despite their age still form part of the development plan, allow housing development within settlement boundaries but resist development beyond those boundaries unless, among other things, it is important to the local economy and would not have an adverse effect on the appearance and character of the landscape. The appeal scheme would extend outside the defined settlement boundaries. A new hedge and trees would be planted to define the western boundary of the development, broadly aligned with the rear of the plots in Stamford Street. The proposed houses would occupy the area between this new boundary, Markfield Road, and the houses in The Poplars, Ash Close and Stamford Street. The Appellants refer to the development as rounding-off at the western edge of Ratby and argue that the scheme would provide a new defensible boundary for the village. 7. Markfield Road and part of the adjacent field have a character influenced by nearby houses, but the scheme would extend some way beyond this into the wider countryside and I consider that it would cut across existing natural features and boundaries in a visually harmful manner. Ratby currently appears on the rim of the landscape when seen from the countryside, and is partly contained by the sharp drop at the end of Stamford Street, but the development would appear to spill over the rim into a trough and up the opposite slope, extending beyond existing field boundaries towards a low ridge. In doing so it would form a substantial urban intrusion into the wider open landscape. The development would also include a very distinctive area of sloping paddock, with scattered trees and ridge-and-furrow. This paddock, topped by the Stamford Street houses at the top of the green bluff, forms a pleasant and interesting landscape setting for the village when looking back from the countryside towards its western edge. This is clearly appreciated from the well-used footpath that leads through the site. Similarly, when looking out of the village from the end of Stamford Street, the land drops away providing a pleasant aspect. Residents can walk from an enclosed, traditional terraced street straight into the open countryside. I consider that the development would cause substantial harm to the landscape. 8. Ratby, like many villages, has ragged edges that come from the complex interactions between historical development, activities, movement and the landscape. There is nothing inherently wrong with that form, nor anything inherently beneficial in rounding off these edges. The proposed hedge at the development’s outer boundary, other than being a theoretical projection of the rear boundary of Stamford Street, would not clearly relate to any existing landscape feature. Even if the hedge were made thicker as suggested at the inquiry, it would be no more or less ‘defensible’ than the current situation. The Appellants propose by means of a unilateral undertaking to plant new woodland beyond the boundary of the site to extend the National Forest and create new rights of way. But even with these proposals and their potential ecological benefits I consider that the scheme overall would have a harmful effect on the landscape for the reasons I have given, and would diminish the benefit of the existing, evidently valued, public right of way. 9. One of the Framework’s core planning principles is to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The appeal site is ordinary countryside, but it has visual value and provides space for walking, jogging and other forms of informal recreation. I conclude that the development would amount to a substantial extension of built development into open countryside, harmful to the character and appearance of the landscape, and would conflict with ‘saved’ Policies RES5 and NE5 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001. The contribution of the proposed development to the supply of housing in the district and in the local area 10. The Statement of Common Ground indicates that the full, objectively assessed housing need for the Borough is 9,000 dwellings for the period 2006-2026, or 450 dwellings per annum, which is derived from the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Core Strategy 2009. Using the Sedgefield methodology, the shortfall of 328 dwellings since the start of the plan period is added to the annual requirement of 450 dwellings over the next 5 years, equating to 516 dwellings per year. None of this is in dispute. 11. The District’s housing strategy over the Core Strategy plan period is heavily reliant on two Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUEs), at Earl Shilton and Barwell, which are referred to in Policies 2 and 3 of the Core Strategy respectively. The Appellants argue that neither site is likely to deliver new homes in the next 5 years and that, combined with the absence of delivery on a large site west of Hinckley, there is less than a 5 year supply of housing land in the Borough. 12. It has taken a long time to bring the two SUEs forward, but I consider that there is now reasonable evidence that things are moving. At Earl Shilton, a letter dated3 September 2015 from Bloor Homes on behalf of the developer consortium, which also includes Barwood Developments, Jelson Homes and Persimmon Homes, states that all the parties have now confirmed that they are in a position to enter into a collaboration agreement. The focus is now on viability in the light of recent sales evidence. This will clarify what the scheme can deliver in terms of affordable housing and other off-site contributions once essential on site infrastructure has been accounted for. Subject to settling the collaboration agreement and the viability position, an outline planning application is to be submitted before Christmas this year. 13. The Barwell SUE is subject to a resolution to grant planning permission subject to a s106 agreement; the Chief Planning and Development Officer has been granted delegated powers to finalise the remaining matters including the obligation and the latter is expected to be completed and planning permission issued by the end of the year. 14. These are complex sites and the process of reserved matters approval and infrastructure provision will take time, but I consider that there is enough evidence to conclude that, even allowing for time to provide initial infrastructure, both sites are likely to make some contribution to the supply of housing in the next 5 years. This will clearly be towards the back end of the 5 year period, but the Council’s revised September 2015 calculation of the 5 year housing trajectory, submitted to the Inquiry, rightly makes realistically low assumptions about the level of early delivery on these sites. 15. The site west of Hinckley is included in the submitted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD as HIN02, and is subject to both outline application and a full application for the development of the first two phases. No permission has yet been granted and the Appellants argue that the site should be discounted completely, pointing to an absence of recent information on the Council’s website. However, a letter dated3 September 2015 from the owner, Bloor Homes, indicates that negotiations are well under way in connection with the applications. Issues regarding measures at the site access have been resolved, negotiations are continuing with bus operators, a further round of traffic modelling has been completed, the design has been the subject of a favourable design review and the s106 obligation for the main site outline is at an advanced stage. The developer’s suggestion that first build completions are likely to take place in June 2016 seems tight, but in the light of the information available I consider it probable that this site will make a significant contribution towards the housing supply in the first five years. 16. I consider that the Council has been realistic about housing delivery from these large sites. I am satisfied that all three sites are deliverable within the terms of the Framework. 17. As for the delivery trajectory from some of the smaller sites allocated in the submitted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD, I again consider that the Appellants’ assessment is unduly negative. They suggest that sites HIN 04, 06, 08, 11 and 12 should be discounted largely because they are Council-owned and, owing to internal processes and the need for a development partner, they will take longer to deliver. But in these cases the authority has the benefit of control and, from experience, local authorities are capable of bringing their own sites forward sites reasonably quickly for development. Site MKBOS02 is more constrained, but even allowing for some slippage I consider that it would be capable of contributing a reasonable number of homes towards the end of the 5 year period. Site NEW02 is not in the developer’s current build programme but even with that slippage it is capable of being delivered within the 5 years. Taking all the evidence into account I consider that, in respect of these smaller sites, the Council has been realistic in its delivery calculations. 18. The Appellants argue that there has been persistent housing under-delivery in the Borough. It is true that a surplus against the annual average requirement has only been registered three times since 2006. However, two of these surpluses have been in the last two years, the most recent one being substantial. The early part of this period was affected by reduced demand linked to the economic downturn, and the most recent two years have registered a notable upturn which is likely to reflect improved economic circumstances. Whilst it is not known whether the improvement will be continued into 2015/16, it is reasonable to allow for cyclical variations in the housing market and in that context I do not consider that there has been a persistent under-supply. A 5% buffer is therefore appropriate to apply to the calculation of the 5 year land supply. 19. Taking all these factors into account, I consider that the housing land supply calculation submitted by the Council to the Inquiry, which is based on the Sedgefield method and a 5% buffer, is as sound a calculation as is possible to make at this time. The new positive evidence from the Council and from the developer in respect of the sites at Earl Shilton and on land west of Hinckley, the information update on Barwell, and the fact that the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD is now at the stage of Examination, clearly point towards a different conclusion on the 5 year supply from that of the Inspectors in appeals at Sketchley House, Burbage APP/K2420/A/13/2208318 (Secretary of State’s decision November 2014) and at Ratby Road, Groby APP/K2420/A/12/2181080 (Inspector’s decision March 2015). I conclude that there is currently sufficient housing land in the Borough as a whole to meet requirements for the next 5 years. 20. The Appellants argue that a more local housing need has not been satisfied. In the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Core Strategy 2009, Ratby is one of four Key Rural Centres relating to Leicester in which the focus is on maintaining existing local services, with a scale of new development to support local needs, rather than allowing larger scale development which might encourage commuting. In this context, Core Strategy Policy 7 supports housing within the settlement boundaries and Policy 8 indicates that the Council will allocate land for the development of a minimum of 75 new homes. 21. Rather more than 75 homes have already been built in Ratby since 2006, and the proposed development on the Casepak site will add to the total; but even so, reading Policies 7 and 8 together with the explanatory text it is clear that, in addition to development within the settlement boundaries, the Core Strategy seeks a development plan allocation at Ratby to meet local needs. No such allocation has been made in the submitted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD. Whilst that is a matter for the DPD Examination, I give some weight to the Appellants’ arguments, informed in part by information from the Council’s Housing Officer and by their local knowledge, that the scheme would help to satisfy a currently unmet need for local market and affordable housing. Moreover, I do not consider that the number of houses sought in this scheme would be disproportionately large in relation to the minimum of 75 referred to by Policy 8. That said, it is my conclusion that the landscape harm that would arise from the particular scheme before me would considerably outweigh the benefits in respect of local housing provision. Other matters 22. A number of objectors including the Parish Council express concern about the effect of the development on local services, although the Council itself has withdrawn its objection in connection with this issue. One disadvantage would be that more young children would have to travel to the adjacent village to go to school, but there is little evidence that local facilities would be adversely affected and indeed I consider that the scheme would generally support local services both through the additional local population and through the contributions effected by means of the s106 agreement towards education and other social facilities. Overall, I consider that, in relation to support for local facilities, the scheme would be in accordance with the objectives of Core Strategy Policy 8. 23 …………. 24 …………. 25. The Appellants refer to the negative effects of a refusal on their own business and employees. Whilst recognising the importance of a healthy economy as one of the elements of sustainable development, risk is an inherent part of business and this matter does not carry so much weight as to make a difference to my conclusions. Conclusions 26. The development would harm the character and appearance of the landscape by spilling out into the wider countryside, removing the characterful steep paddock next to Stamford Street, and failing to respect existing landscape features. It would not conform with ‘saved’ Policies RES5 and NE5 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001 which, though many years old, still have relevance as a means of protecting the countryside from urban encroachment. 27. Policies RES5 and NE5 of course rely on defined settlement boundaries which affect the supply of housing land. These may need adjustment where housing allocations are made, but given my conclusion that there is currently an adequate supply of housing land in the Borough for the next 5 years, I continue to give them full weight as far as the appeal site is concerned. 28. The scheme would provide benefits in terms of the provision of a range of housing in Ratby, including affordable housing, which would help to meet local needs, and it would generally support local facilities, so it would not be in conflict with Policy 8 of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Core Strategy 2009. However, I consider that the harm to the landscape overrides these benefits. 29. I therefore consider that the scheme would be in conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. I have taken into account all the other matters raised but they do not alter my conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed.”
“46 We must emphasize here that the policies in paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF do not make "out-of-date" policies for the supply of housing irrelevant in the determination of a planning application or appeal. Nor do they prescribe how much weight should be given to such policies in the decision. Weight is, as ever, a matter for the decision-maker (see the speech of Lord Hoffmann in Tesco Stores Ltd. v Secretary of State for the Environment[1995] 1 WLR 759 , at p.780F-H). Neither of those paragraphs of the NPPF says that a development plan policy for the supply of housing that is "out-of-date" should be given no weight, or minimal weight, or, indeed, any specific amount of weight. They do not say that such a policy should simply be ignored or disapplied. That idea appears to have found favour in some of the first instance judgments where this question has arisen. It is incorrect. 47 One may, of course, infer from paragraph 49 of the NPPF that in the Government's view the weight to be given to out-of-date policies for the supply of housing will normally be less than the weight due to policies that provide fully for the requisite supply. The weight to be given to such policies is not dictated by government policy in the NPPF. Nor is it, nor could it be, fixed by the court. It will vary according to the circumstances, including, for example, the extent to which relevant policies fall short of providing for the five-year supply of housing land, the action being taken by the local planning authority to address it, or the particular purpose of a restrictive policy – such as the protection of a "green wedge" or of a gap between settlements. 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. Such an outcome is clearly contemplated by government policy in the NPPF. It will always be for the decision-maker to judge, in the particular circumstances of the case in hand, how much weight should be given to conflict with policies for the supply of housing that are out-of-date. This is not a matter of law; it is a matter of planning judgment (see paragraphs 70 to 75 of Lindblom J.'s judgment in Crane, paragraphs 71 and 74 of Lindblom J.'s judgment in Phides, and paragraphs 87, 105, 108 and 115 of Holgate J.'s judgment in Woodcock Holdings Ltd. v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Mid-Sussex District Council[2015] EWHC 1173 (Admin) ).”