“6.142 OPOL is open land which, while not serving the purposes of the Green Belt, is locally important because it helps preserve the distinctiveness of an area. As well as providing attractive settings, they provide other benefits, such as informal recreation and habitats for biodiversity, therefore helping to provide sustainable communities and help mitigate climate change. The main aim is to protect OPOL from development, however there may be instances where limited small scale or ancillary development will be permitted, such as visitor facilities or development that is ancillary to existing uses. This allows limited small scale development over and above that permitted in the Green Belt. The council will consider the visual impact that development has on the openness and distinctiveness of the OPOL, taking into account the cumulative impact.”
“The majority of the borough’s open land is designated Green Belt. The main purpose of the Green Belt is to keep land permanently open. Pressure for development in the Green Belt is generally small-scale developments such as the re-use of agricultural buildings. The borough also has locally protected open countryside called `Other Protected Open Land` (OPOL) which aims to preserve the distinctiveness of an area … …. Development on OPOL will be permitted where it is appropriate, small-scale or ancillary development located close to existing buildings within the OPOL, which does not affect the openness, local distinctiveness or visual amenity of the OPOL, taking into account its cumulative impact. Where appropriate, development will be screened or landscaped to minimise its visual impact. … The council will assess OPOL in the Site Allocations DPD. The council will provide further advice and guidance on this policy.”
“… a substantial area of attractive open land which has much in common with the open countryside to the south. It serves to separate the extensive suburbanised area of Grotton to the east and the existing and proposed housing area to the west.”
“Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: (a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan) …”
“Officers consider that the site is a ‘valued landscape’ as defined in paragraph 170 of the NPPF for the following reasons: - The site itself is an open agricultural field sloping gently down to a wooded brook, with a well-used byway along its northern boundary, set within open countryside to the south and Green Belt beyond, coupled with the Wharmton Undulating Uplands character area. It is considered that this contribution of attributes takes the landscape ‘out of the ordinary’. - It is obvious from the representations received from the public that the byway and footpath network is a popular route for access to and from the wider area for families and dog walkers for instance. Recreational users would find that the current views of the open fields would be irreversibly lost and it [is] these views that adds to the outdoor experience. - The application site is valued locally because it is part of the open countryside that provides a rural context for the urban area. It is the combination of the physical attributes of the area with how it is perceived that makes a valued landscape.”
“This open upland area sits between the urban fringe of Oldham and the settlements of the Tame Valley whilst providing long views out over the nearby urban areas. Scattered settlements and farmsteads are dispersed throughout the area and are linked by a network of narrow winding lanes. The area is predominantly farmland consisting of improved grassland managed for grazing and silage, although some areas are unmanaged and becoming rushy. These out-bye pastures are defined by a distinctive field pattern of gritstone walls. The farms of the area contain a significant number of horse paddocks whilst makeshift farm buildings associated with diversification are evident throughout the area.”
“Open, upland landscape character created by the altitude, scarcity of trees and long views. A characteristic patchwork of upland pastures including small irregular fields and larger rectangular fields of moorland enclosure. A network of gritstone walls. Extensive network of footpaths and Public Rights of Way. Dispersed settlement pattern comprising scattered farmsteads. A network of narrow winding lanes connect the farmsteads and settlements. Distinctive vernacular architecture dominated by the millstone grit building stone. Frequent long views across the intersecting valleys.”
“An open upland landscape character created by the altitude, scarcity of trees and long views. Frequent long views out over the urban settlements confined within the valleys below. A characteristic patchwork of upland pastures including small, irregular fields. Dispersed settlement pattern comprising scattered farmsteads sometimes in fairly close proximity. A network of narrow winding lanes connecting the farmsteads and settlements. Stone walls without grass verges often bound the lanes. A network of gritstone walls that create the field enclosures. The stone walls provide shelter and habitat for wildlife and are also of considerable historical/cultural interest. Wet pastures where agricultural land has not been drained. Noticeable presence of pylons and transmitters reducing the landscape’s remote feel.”
“[The Council’s] Landscape Character Assessment (2009) includes the [S]ite within the Wharmton Undulating Uplands area (Area 7). However, it is noted that in the applicants submitted LVIA [Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment] they claim that the site lies within what they consider to be ‘The Urban Area’ and therefore does not fall within a defined Landscape Character Area. Whilst it is accepted that the current allocated housing site, could be defined as being within the ‘Urban Area’, it is officer’s assertion (sic), based upon the work that has been done by [landscape architects], that the OPOL site does fall within the Wharmton Undulating Uplands. … The site and majority (council emphasis) of the study area falls within Type 7a Urban Fringe Farmland …”
“10. So that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 11). 11. Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For plan-making this means that: (a) plans should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area, and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change; (b) strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless: (i) the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or (ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. For decision-taking this means: (c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-todate development plan without delay; or (d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date,7 granting permission unless: (i) the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed 6; or (ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.”
“This includes, for applications involving the provision of housing, situations where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites …”
“The proposal would result in the loss of OPOL 12 land and subsequent landscape harm and harm to the visual amenity of the Wharmton Undulating Uplands (Area 7a) LCA and Thornley wooded valley landscape since the development will result in a significant fragmentation and loss of Green infrastructure assets and open landscape, as well as having a transformative effect on the openness, local distinctiveness and visual amenity of OPOL 12 and the Wharmton Undulating Uplands (Area 7a) LCA. This harm significantly and demonstrably outweighs the acknowledged benefits of the scheme when weighed against the Local Plan and NPPF policies taken as a whole. As such, the proposal is contrary to: - Policy 6 – Green Infrastructure - Policy 21 – Protecting Natural Environmental Assets; and - Policy 22 – Protecting Open Land of the Oldham Local Development Framework, Development Plan Document (November 2011) [ie, DPD] that seek to protect valued landscapes and OPOL land.”
“… Members previously felt that these benefits did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the loss of OPOL land and the landscape buffer value it provides in this location. Instead, they felt that the residential development of the eastern land parcel is in non-compliance with adopted Core Strategy Policy 22 [of the DPD] in respect of the proposed development of an area of Other Protected Open Land (OPOL) and that the harm this caused weighed against the scheme and was significant enough to support a refusal of the scheme.”
“The Council’s previous reason for refusal refers to: ‘… landscape harm and harm to the visual amenity of the Wharmton Undulating Uplands (Area 7a) LCA’ and that allowing the proposal would have: ‘… a transformative effect on the openness, local distinctiveness and visual amenity of the Wharmton Undulating Uplands (Area 7a) LCA’.” ‘… landscape harm and harm to the visual amenity of the Wharmton Undulating Uplands (Area 7a) LCA’ ‘… a transformative effect on the openness, local distinctiveness and visual amenity of the Wharmton Undulating Uplands (Area 7a) LCA’.”
“7.29 … is currently unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. Officers consider that it is not able to demonstrate more than a three-year supply of land for housing. As such, the shortfall in housing supply is significant. Consequently, in the absence of a five year supply of land for housing, Members have to recognise that the proposed new market and affordable housing carries very significant weight in favour of this application and that this weight is required to be applied by current planning legislation. 7.30Overall the above shows: - There have been almost no major planning applications in this ward for the last decade; - There has been under-delivery of housing and affordable housing within the Saddleworth West and Lees ward over the past ten years when measured against the historic requirement, current requirements and delivery in other wards within the Borough; and - The Council cannot show a five-year housing land supply. 7.31 In these circumstances, the delivery of up to 265 dwellings on the site would make a significant contribution to the supply of housing and affordable housing and this is a factor which must weigh in favour of the scheme and should be given weight in the determination of this scheme.”
“We say this particularly when considering that the Council’s OPOL policy is clearly ‘out-of date’ and therefore carries less weight than it would if the Council could show a five-year land supply.”
“7.47 The position of the applicant in submitting this second application was that the site lay outside the Wharmton Undulating Uplands and consequently the weight applied to landscaping harm by Members was overstated in the assessment of the planning balance in the original application. 7.48 Having considered the matter in some detail and taken legal advice, the Council consider[s] that, in this respect, the boundaries of the character areas with the urban area have been set to correspond with inner Green Belt boundaries. This is unsurprising given that the scope of the 2009 LCA was to characterise Green Belt areas. As these are Green Belt boundaries, they were clearly defined and not simply gradual transition lines or elastic concept[s]. This site is not in the Green Belt. As such, it is clear that this site lies outside the Wharmton Undulating Uplands. 7.49 Green Belt is, of course, not a landscape characterisation. However, the point is that the 2009 LCA set out to characterise only Green Belt areas and thus it is appropriate that the boundaries it incorporates, where corresponding with the extent of the Green Belt, should be understood to have been drawn accordingly and accorded due precision. 7.50 Secondly, and bringing the previous point to bear on this assessment, it is clear from the relevant plans that the boundary of the Wharmton Undulating Uplands (type 7a) aligns consistently with the inner boundary of the Green Belt in the vicinity of the site. The applicant’s [ie, Interested Party’s] analysis shows this to be the case. Moreover, the scale of the assessment in the 2009 LCA does not occasion any difficulty on the facts of the present case in reaching the conclusion that follows from this that the site is outside the Wharmton Undulating Uplands (type 7a). 7.51 Thirdly, the fact that the site can be said to be close to, or even at, the relevant Green Belt boundary does not mean that it falls within the Green Belt and is thus within the Wharmton Undulating Uplands (type 7a). The acknowledgement that the site is close to, or at the boundary with another area is, in fact, an acknowledgement that it lies outside that other area. 7.52 Finally the fact that the site (or parts of it) may share characteristics of the Wharmton Undulating Uplands (type 7a) is not a reason for regarding the site to be within that area if it is otherwise clear that it is outside it. It might be a reason for thinking that landscape impacts of the development would not be dissimilar on the basis that they would f[a]ll on land with similar characteristics, but that is a conceptually separate point. Moreover, if the site is outside the Wharmton Undulating Uplands (type 7a), that does not, of course, mean that there could not be landscape effects on it from the development but that they will not be direct effects. 7.53 In the light of the above, that it would not be reasonable for the Council to argue that the site is within the Wharmton Undulating Uplands. As such, a significant part of the previous reason for refusal is felt to be weak and now has less weight to support it.”
“7.68 Officers feel that significant weight must be given in the decision-making process to these benefits. In officer’s opinion, these benefits significantly and demonstrably outweigh the loss of OPOL land and the landscape buffer value it has in this location. We say this particularly in view of: - the lack of weight the Council’s OPOL policy has because of the Council not having a five-year land supply; and - the fact that Members previous concerns about the impact of the scheme on the Wharmton Undulating Uplands (Area 7a) LCA are lessened since the site sits adjacent to, but not in it. 7.69 Overall, the development’s land use is consistent with policies and objectives of the development plan to which material weight should be afforded and any conflict with them is clearly outweighed by other material considerations. Officers consider the proposal is sustainable development and that its significant benefits outweigh its limited adverse impacts in land use terms. As such, Officers feel the scheme is acceptable in land use terms, particularly since the proposal would also result in the transfer of land to the adjacent school for their use, the scheme would provide a mix of housing types (and subsequent mixed and balanced community), there is no loss of high quality agricultural land and the scheme is viable enough to meet policy requirements.”
“Turning to the assessment made of the impact on Lydgate Conservation Area, whilst I acknowledge that the linear form of development in the Conservation Area is an important aspect of its character, its hilltop location and visibility also contribute to its character as a ridge development in an isolated location. This element of its character, which contributes to its heritage significance, will be harmed by development on the applicant site eroding long distance views. As stated in my original comments, I maintain that this will result in ‘less than substantial’ harm and acknowledge the intention in the latest comments for the designer to be mindful of views of the area and church in bringing forward the detailed design.”
“The Council have considered the impact of the proposed development on the listed buildings … officers conclude that the proposal would cause ‘less than substantial harm’ to the designated heritage assets for the purposes of the NPPF. Turning to the assessment on the impact of the Lydgate Conservation Area (sic), whilst it is acknowledged that the linear form of development in the Conservation Area is an important aspect of its character, its hilltop location and visibility also contribute to its character as a ridge development in an isolated location. This element of its character, which contributes to its heritage significance, will be harmed by development on the applicant site eroding long distance views. This will result in ‘less than substantial’ harm. Therefore, any reserved matter applications will need to be mindful of views of the area and church in bringing forward the detailed design. Conclusion of Impact on Heritage Assets It is the opinion of the Conservation Officer that the proposed development, by causing ‘less than substantial harm’, would fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the Grade II listed building, Knowls Lane Farm, Knowls Lane Farmhouse, Manor Farm and Flash Cottages … Given the statutory duty, set out in s 66(1) and s 72(1) of the 1990 Act, the Council must give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed buildings and preserving and enhancing the setting of the Lydgate Conservation Area in carrying out the planning balance exercise, even where the harm that would be caused has been assessed as ‘less than substantial.’”
“Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.”
“In accordance with paragraph 196 of the NPPF, whilst giving the heritage harm great weight, Officers consider that it did not outweigh the wider public benefits generated by the proposal. Both the applicant and the Council agree that the public benefits outweigh the less than substantial harm that would be caused to any heritage assets and the effect of the development on those heritage assets is not a reason for refusing the scheme.”
“7.79 Officers also considered the significance of the Lydgate Conservation Area and the contribution made by setting to that significance. They conclude that the proposed development would not harm the conservation area and that its significance would be sustained. 7.80 As a consequence of the above, the scheme is considered acceptable in heritage terms.”
“… the proposed development would clearly change the landscape character of the area from rural to urban. It is therefore felt that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the landscape resource of major/moderate significance …”
“… with high sensitivity receptors and medium/high magnitude of visual effect, it is considered that the scheme would have an adverse impact on visual amenity of major/moderate to major significance, both on completion and beyond 15 years post construction.”
“7.104 The identified moderate adverse effects on the adjacent Wharmton Undulating Uplands (Area 7a) LCA is contrary to UDP policy 6 – Green Infrastructure [GI]. The development will result in significant, loss and fragmentation of GI assets, namely the Thornley Wooded Valley landscape feature and open landscape of the adjacent Wharmton Undulating Uplands (7a). Both features are important to the physical integrity of the identified GI corridor and network which is already significantly eroded by former residential development within the valley landscape. 7.105 The identified moderate adverse effects on the adjacent Wharmton Undulating Uplands (Area 7a) LCA is contrary to UDP Policy 21 – Protecting Natural Environmental Assets. The development has been found to not protect and conserve the local natural environments functions or provide new and enhanced functional GI; the policy stipulates that development proposals must extend or link existing green corridors as well as conserve and reinforce the positive aspects and distinctiveness of the surrounding landscape character. 7.106 The identified moderate adverse effects on the adjacent Wharmton Undulating Uplands (Area 7a) LCA is contrary to UDP Policy 22. However, these impacts are indirect, rather than direct impacts. Furthermore, the scale, form and layout of the development is considered to have a transformative effect on the local distinctiveness and visual amenity of OPOL 12. However, the OPOL policy is out of date in view of the Council’s lack of a five-year housing land supply. As such, this policy does not have significant weight. 7.107 Nevertheless, on the issue of landscape impact, it is considered that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with the relevant development plan policies as outlined above. This landscape harm therefore weighs against the proposal somewhat.”
“8.3 Paragraph 11 of the Framework explains how the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies. Where the development plan is absent, silent, or the relevant policies are out of date, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. 8.4 Because the Council’s lack of a five-year housing land supply, it is clear that the Council’s OPOL policies – and indeed any other policies that restrict development of this land – are out of date. Consequently, it is considered that the presumption in favour of approving the development on the OPOL land can only be displaced if the adverse impacts of approving the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of such development, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF 2018 as a whole.”
“Importantly, the Council needs to significantly boost the supply of housing to meet the Borough’s needs. The requirement to significantly boost the supply of housing in the district, coupled with the fact that there have been very few major planning applications for housing submitted to and approved by the Council in the past 10 years in the Saddleworth West and Lees ward, attracts substantial weight in favour of granting permission for the proposals. However, the need to boost the supply of housing does not necessarily override all other considerations.”
“8.13 In this case there are concerns in respect of the adverse effects on adjacent landscape and loss of OPOL land. It is considered that the scheme would cause harm to the character and appearance of the current valued landscape. However, the weight that can be applied to this landscape harm is limited because: - Firstly, the land in question does not sit in an allocated landscape character area; and - Secondly, the Council’s OPOL policy is out-of-date because of its lack of a five-year housing land supply. 8.14 Ultimately, the key test in considering the planning balance of this application is whether the harm to the valued landscape is outweighed by the significant benefits new housing brings on an already part-allocated site and that enables the provision of a new link road sought in the Local Plan. 8.15 Given: - The significant economic and social benefits associated with the scheme and the positive weight that is given to the environmental benefits of the scheme; - The fact that the site is part allocated for residential use; - The site will deliver a long sought, policy compliant link road; and, - The scheme has no design, ecology, amenity, flood risk, drainage, highways or other impactions that would sustain a reason for refusal, full planning permission is recommended to be granted for the link road and outline planning permission be granted for the residential use since the benefits of the scheme clearly outweigh the harm.”
“(2) In dealing with an application for planning permission or permission in principle the authority shall have regard to - (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application …”
“(a) the regional strategy for the region in which the area is situated (if there is a regional strategy for that region), and (a) the development plan documents (taken as a whole) which have been adopted or approved in relation to that area, and (b) the neighbourhood development plans which have been made in relation to that area.”
“72 General duty as respects conservation areas in exercise of planning functions (1) In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any functions under or by virtue of any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. (2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) are the planningActs and Part I of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 and sections 70 and 73 of theLeasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 .”
“The law that applies to planning officers' reports to committee is well established and clear. Such reports ought not to be read with undue rigour, but with reasonable benevolence, and bearing in mind that they are written for councillors with local knowledge (see the judgment of Baroness Hale of Richmond in R (on the application of Morge) v Hampshire County Council[2011] UKSC 2 , at paragraph 36, and the judgment of Sullivan J., as he then was, in R. v Mendip District Council, ex parte Fabre (2000) 80 P. & C.R. 500, at p.509). The question for the court will always be whether, on a fair reading of his report as a whole, the officer has significantly misled the members on a matter bearing upon their decision, and the error goes uncorrected before the decision is made. Minor mistakes may be excused. It is only if the advice is such as to misdirect the members in a serious way – for example, by failing to draw their attention to considerations material to their decision or bringing into account considerations that are immaterial, or misinforming them about relevant facts, or providing them with a false understanding of relevant planning policy – that the court will be able to conclude that their decision was rendered unlawful by the advice they were given (see the judgment of Sullivan LJ in R (on the application of Siraj) v Kirklees Metropolitan District Council[2010] EWCA Civ 1286 , at paragraph 19, citing the familiar passage in the judgment of Judge LJ, as he then was, in R. v Selby District Council, ex parte Oxton Farms [1997] EGCS. 60). Unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise, it may reasonably be assumed that, if the members followed the officer's recommendation, they did so on the basis of the advice that he or she gave (see the judgment of Lewison L.J. in Palmer v Herefordshire Council[2016] EWCA Civ 1061 , at paragraph 7).”
“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-todate if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”
“12. Paragraph 14, which is important in the present appeals, deals with the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’, which is said to be ‘[at] the heart of’ the NPPF and which should be seen as “a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking”
“54. The argument, here and below, has concentrated on the meaning of paragraph 49, rather than paragraph 14 and the interaction between the two. However, since the primary purpose of paragraph 49 is simply to act as a trigger to the operation of the “tilted balance” under paragraph 14, it is important to understand how that is intended to work in practice. The general effect is reasonably clear. In the absence of relevant or up-to-date development plan policies, the balance is tilted in favour of the grant of permission, except where the benefits are “significantly and demonstrably” outweighed by the adverse effects, or where “specific policies” indicate otherwise. (See also the helpful discussion by Lindblom J in Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government[2014] EWHC 754 (Admin) at [42] et seq.) 55. It has to be borne in mind also that paragraph 14 is not concerned solely with housing policy. It needs to work for other forms of development covered by the development plan, for example employment or transport. Thus, for example, there may be a relevant policy for the supply of employment land, but it may become out-of-date, perhaps because of the arrival of a major new source of employment in the area. Whether that is so, and with what consequence, is a matter of planning judgment, unrelated of course to paragraph 49 which deals only with housing supply. This may in turn have an effect on other related policies, for example for transport. The pressure for new land may mean in turn that other competing policies will need to be given less weight in accordance with the tilted balance. But again that is a matter of pure planning judgment, not dependent on issues of legal interpretation. 56. If that is the right reading of paragraph 14 in general, it should also apply to housing policies deemed “out-of-date” under paragraph 49, which must accordingly be read in that light. It also shows why it is not necessary to label other policies as “out-ofdate” merely in order to determine the weight to be given to them under paragraph 14. As the Court of Appeal recognised, that will remain a matter of planning judgment for the decision-maker. Restrictive policies in the development plan (specific or not) are relevant, but their weight will need to be judged against the needs for development of different kinds (and housing in particular), subject where applicable to the ‘tilted balance’.”
“46. As this court said in Hopkins Homes Ltd. (in paragraph 47), the policies in paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF do not prescribe how much weight is to be given to relevant policies of the development plan in the determination of a planning application or appeal. Weight is always 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) (paragraph 46). 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". The decision-maker must judge "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 the first instance judgments in Crane v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government[2015] EWHC 425 (Admin) (at paragraphs 70 to 75), Phides (at paragraphs 71 and 74), and Woodcock Holdings Ltd. v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Mid-Sussex District Council[2015] EWHC 1173 (Admin) (at paragraphs 87, 105, 108 and 115). 47. The policy in paragraph 14 of the NPPF requires the appropriate balance to be struck, and a balance can only be struck if the considerations on either side of it are given due weight. But in a case where the local planning authority is unable to demonstrate five years' supply of housing land, the policy leaves to the decision-maker's planning judgment the weight he gives to relevant restrictive policies. Logically, however, one would expect the weight given to such policies to be less if the shortfall in the housing land supply is large, and more if it is small. Other considerations will be relevant too: the nature of the restrictive policies themselves, the interests they are intended to protect, whether they find support in policies of the NPPF, the implications of their being breached, and so forth. … 51. Secondly, the policies in paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF do not specify the weight to be given to the benefit, in a particular proposal, of reducing or overcoming a shortfall against the requirement for a five-year supply of housing land. This is a matter for the decision-maker's planning judgment, and the court will not interfere with that planning judgment except on public law grounds. But the weight given to the benefits of new housing development in an area where a shortfall in housing land supply has arisen is likely to depend on factors such as the broad magnitude of the shortfall, how long it is likely to persist, what the local planning authority is doing to reduce it, and how much of it the development will meet.”
“52. Of course, when judging a ‘tilted balance’ under [14] which requires harm and benefit to be measured against the Framework policies, greater weight can rationally be given to harm which breaches its policies than to harm which only breaches Local Plan policies, or to put it another way, greater weight can be given to those policies than to other Local Plan policies. After all, s 38(6) [of the TCPA] means that Local Plan policies which are inconsistent with the Framework still provide the statutory basis for the decision. But the weight given to the ‘other material considerations’ means that those which accord with the Framework are weightier.”
“5.12 Greater Manchester's LCEA [Low Carbon Economic Area] vision is that by 2015 Greater Manchester has established itself as a world leader in transforming to a low carbon economy. The physical retrofit and supply of energy to both the residential and non-residential building stock plays a key role in achieving this vision. ... 5.23 Policy 18 provides details of how we will reduce energy consumption and increase energy conservation by securing use of appropriate low carbon and renewable energy technologies.”
“Development proposals, where appropriate, must: a. promote and enhance the borough’s Green Infrastructure network. This currently consists of nature conservation sites, strategic recreation routes, green corridors and links, canals and open spaces which are defined below; … g. enhance and reinforce distinctive elements of the borough’s landscapes and have regard to the Oldham Landscape Character Assessment…”
“Development must follow the principles of the zero-carbon hierarchy. This is outlined in the Government's `Sustainable New Homes - The Road to Zero Carbon: Consultation on the Code for Sustainable Homes and the Energy Efficiency standard for Zero Carbon Homes.This will be achieved through: • energy efficiency: the first priority is to ensure a high level of energy efficiency in the design and fabric of the building and • carbon compliance: the second priority is the minimum level of carbon reduction through energy efficient fabric and onsite technologies (including directly connected heat networks) and • allowable solutions: a range of measures available for achieving zero carbon beyond the minimum carbon compliance requirements. All developments over 1,000 square metres or ten dwellings and above (until such time that all development is required by the Code for Sustainable Homes to achieve zero carbon) are required to reduce energy emissions in line with the targets set out in Table 8. These targets are taken from the Greater Manchester Decentralised and Zero Carbon Energy Planning study... Compliance with the targets must be demonstrated through an energy statement which must be assessed to the council’s satisfaction. Developers will be expected to meet the targets unless it can be clearly demonstrated by the developer that it is not financially viable and would prejudice the proposed development. ... Where possible, new development will be required to connect to or make contributions to existing or future decentralised heat or power schemes. Development should be sited and designed in a way that allows connection to decentralised, low and zero carbon energy sources, including connections at a future date or phase of the development... Where possible new development will be used to help improve energy efficiency and increase decentralised, low-carbon energy supplies to existing buildings.”
“New development and growth pressures must be balanced by protecting, conserving and enhancing our local natural environments, Green Infrastructure, biodiversity, geodiversity and landscapes to ensure a high quality of life is sustained. The council will value, protect, conserve and enhance the local natural environment and its functions and provide new and enhanced Green Infrastructure. … Development proposals must: … d. have regard to the principal landscape objective for the relevant landscape character area and type found within the Oldham Landscape Character Assessment.Development must enhance the visual amenity of the area, including Green Belt land, through conserving and reinforcing the positive aspects and distinctiveness of the surrounding landscape character.”
“The majority of the borough’s open land is designated Green Belt. The main purpose of the Green Belt is to keep land permanently open. Pressure for development in the Green Belt is generally small-scale developments such as the re-use of agricultural buildings. The borough also has locally protected open countryside called `Other Protected Open Land` (OPOL) which aims to preserve the distinctiveness of an area … Development on OPOL will be permitted where it is appropriate, small-scale or ancillary development located close to existing buildings within the OPOL, which does not affect the openness, local distinctiveness or visual amenity of the OPOL, taking into account its cumulative impact. Where appropriate, development will be screened or landscaped to minimise its visual impact.” 102.The supporting text to the policy advises that the OPOL identified in the 2006 UDP (including the eastern part of the Site) will continue to be protected. At [6.142] the text advises that: “6.142 OPOL is open land which, while not serving the purposes of the Green Belt, is locally important because it helps preserve the distinctiveness of an area. As well as providing attractive settings, they provide other benefits, such as informal recreation and habitats for biodiversity, therefore helping to provide sustainable communities and help mitigate climate change.”
“In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should expect new development to: a) comply with any development plan policies on local requirements for decentralised energy supply unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that this is not feasible or viable; and b) take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption.”
“When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.”
“Landscape Character Assessment is a method of describing an area in a systematic way. It describes what makes a place distinctive. It does not assign values to landscapes.” distinctive. It does not assign values to landscapes.”
“2.17 The location plan and study area is shown in Map 1. It covers the Green Belt surrounding Oldham…”
“10.26 Policy 22 of the Core Strategy Provides the principal policy framework against which this proposal is to be assessed against. Policy 22 establishes that development on OPOL will be permitted where it is appropriate, small scale or ancillary development, located close to existing buildings on the OPOL, which does not affect the openness, local distinctiveness, or visual amenity of the OPOL, taking account of its cumulative impact. 10.27 In view of this policy context, the applicant recognises that the development would be in conflict with the requirements of Policy 22. As such the proposal is contrary to a specific part of the development plan. 10.28. Notwithstanding this however, Policy 22 is considered to be related to the supply of housing, insofar as it places a constraint on development. Given the clear shortfall in housing demonstrated by the Housing Delivery Test, and referenced throughout this planning statement, Policy 22 is considered to be out of date and should be afforded limited weight in the determination of this application.”
“It is equally clear that §8.13 of the [2019 Report] is concerned squarely with the (critical) question of the weight to be given to the conflict with paragraph 170 of the NPPF, in the application of the tilted balance.”
“The identified moderate adverse effects on the Wharmton Undulating Uplands (Area 7a) LCA is contrary to UDP policy 6 – Green Infrastructure. The development will result in significant loss and fragmentation of GI [green infrastructure] assets, namely the Thornley Wooded Valley landscape feature and open landscape included in the Wharmton Undulating Uplands (7a). Both features are important to the physical integrity of the identified GI corridor and network which is already significantly eroded by former residential development within the valley landscape. The identified moderate adverse effects on the Wharmton Undulating Uplands (Area 7a) LCA is contrary to UDP Policy 22 – The scale, form and layout of the development is found to have a transformative effect on the local distinctiveness and visual amenity of OPOL 12. On the issue of landscape impact, it is considered that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with the relevant development plan policies as outlined above. The landscape harm and policy conflict therefore weighs against the proposal.”
“In this case there are concerns in respect of the adverse effects on this area of landscape and loss of OPOL land. It is considered that the scheme would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, and specifically to this valued landscape. The key test in this regard is whether or not the harm to the valued landscape is outweighed by the benefits new housing brings on a part allocated site and the provision of a new link road. Given the significant economic and social benefits associated with the scheme and the positive weight that is given to the environmental benefits of the scheme, the fact that the site is part allocated for residential use, it will deliver a long sought link road and has no design, ecology, amenity, flood risk, drainage, highways or other impactions that would sustain a reason for refusal, full planning permission is recommended to be granted for the link road and outline planning permission is recommended to be granted for the residential element of the application, since the benefits outweigh the harm is justified in this respect.”
“2.1 This Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) has been prepared to describe the evolution of the borough’s rural landscape and assess its special character, distinctiveness and qualities. It draws on both the natural and cultural features of the area and classifies 7 landscape areas that contain more detailed landscape types. What is a Landscape Character Assessment ? 2.2 The former Countryside Agency’s publication ‘Making Sense of Place’ defines LCA as a tool for identifying the features that give a locality its sense of place and pinpointing what makes it different from its neighbouring areas. This is sometimes referred to as local distinctiveness. 2.3 The same publication goes on to state: "Landscape Character Assessment provides a framework for describing an area in a systematic way. It lets different interest groups make better judgement by knowing what is present and what is distinct, so any change can respect local character, or add to it, and even change it if that is what is desired.”
“Making judgements 2.7 Land management decisions will ultimately lie with society - owners, politicians, land managers, local communities and many other stakeholders. But their decisions will be more sound if they are based on information assembled through the Landscape Character Assessment process. The Value of Landscape Character Assessment 2.8 The former Countryside Agency, again in ‘Making Sense of Place’ identify the fact that: ‘People can welcome development if it is well designed and contributes to quality of life. Policy makers and practitioners need ways of achieving this, and Landscape Character Assessment is one of the key techniques. Landscape Character Assessment tells you what makes a place distinctive. You can use this information to achieve high quality development that is not only in the right place, but which respects and enhances its surroundings. It can also inform land management decisions that will help the economy, as well as sustain the environment.’”
“83 If a planning authority that was in default of the requirement of a five years’ supply were to continue to apply its environmental and amenity policies with full rigour, the objective of the Framework could be frustrated. The purpose of paragraph 49 is to indicate a way in which the lack of a five years’ supply of sites can be put right. It is reasonable for the guidance to suggest that in such cases the development plan policies for the supply of housing, however recent they may be, should not be considered as being up to date.”
“The applicant’s heritage statement and supplementary briefing note considered each of the heritage assets affected and the contribution that its setting makes to their significance. They also assessed the impact of the development on that significance. They concluded that, on balance of considerations, there will be some limited harm to the significance of Knowls Lane, Knowls Lane Farmhouse and Flash Cottage.”
“In accordance with paragraph 196 of the NPPF, whilst giving the heritage harm great weight, Officers consider that it did not outweigh the wider public benefits generated by the proposal. Both the applicant and the Council agree that the public benefits outweigh the less than substantial harm that would be caused to any heritage assets and the effect of the development on those heritage assets is not a reason for refusing the scheme.”
“7.77 Overall, the proposed development would result in a limited level of harm at the lower end of the scale to the listed heritage assets. Such harm is ‘less than substantial’. As set out in paragraph 196 of the NPPF, this harm has been weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, whilst acknowledging the considerable importance and weight to be applied to the statutory duties of thePlanning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 . 7.78 The public benefits associated with the proposed development clearly and demonstrably outweigh the less than substantial harm that would be caused to the listed buildings. It is therefore felt that the effect on heritage assets is not a reason for refusal of the application that could be sustained.”
“7.79 Officers also considered the significance of the Lydgate Conservation Area and the contribution made by setting to that significance. They conclude that the proposed development would not harm the conservation area and that its significance would be sustained. 7.80 As a consequence of the above, the scheme is considered acceptable in heritage terms.” considered acceptable in heritage terms.”
“7.88 There are significant heritage assetsthat are materially affected by the proposal, which in turn, has an impact on the landscape, including the Lees Conservation Area, Lydgate Conservation Area and the Church of St Anne (Grade II listed). In relation to the site itself, Knowls Lane Farm and Knowls Lane Farmhouse (Grade II listed) and Flash Cottages (Grade II listed) are also materially affected in landscape impact terms.”
“8.11 As noted above, paragraph 196 of the Framework requires the harm to the significance of heritage assets to be balanced against the public benefits of the scheme. In addition, paragraph 193 requires that, when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of heritage assets, great weight should be given to their conservation. However, for the reasons explained, it is considered that the level of harm to heritage assets would be limited and should be placed at the lower end of the ‘less than substantial’ spectrum. In this case, it is found that any harm to heritage assets would be outweighed by the scheme’s public benefits. Consequently, it is considered that the so-called ‘tilted balance’ of paragraph 11 of the Framework is not displaced in this instance.”