Case Reference: 3194044

Appeal Decision
Inquiry opened on 3 December 2019
Site visit made on 2 and 13 December 2019
by Philip Major BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 31st January 2020
Appeal Ref: APP/X0360/W/18/3194044
Land at Lodge Road, Hurst, Wokingham RG10 0SG
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Wokingham Borough
Council.
• The application Ref: 172894, dated 29 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 6
December 2017.
• The development proposed is the erection of 5 dwellings and garages with creation of a
new vehicular access and pedestrian access to Lodge Road and footway provision.
• This decision supersedes that issued on 10 December 2018. That decision on the appeal
was quashed by order of the High Court.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The inquiry sat for 4 days between 3 and 6 December. Closing submissions
were subsequently submitted in writing with my agreement, and the inquiry
was formally closed in writing on 6 January 2020. I am required to determine
this appeal afresh. The previous ‘decision’ has no legal basis. There may be
elements of a previous Inspector’s consideration of a case which are relevant
as material considerations even though a decision was quashed, but ultimately
I must make my own judgement on the merits of this case. It is notable that
the previous ‘decision’ was quashed by agreement on one ground only, with no
judgement being made in relation to the other 4 grounds of claim.
Furthermore, the evidence put to me was significantly different to that given in
2018, and the site context has changed with the ongoing redevelopment of the
property known as the Old Lodge. I am therefore in a position where I can
take little from the previous Inspector’s consideration of the proposal.
3. I undertook a pre inquiry unaccompanied site visit on 2 December 2019. With
the agreement of the parties I also undertook a more extensive unaccompanied
site visit on 13 December 2019. This second visit included my entering the site
itself and walking between the site and various locations in and around the
settlement.
4. At the previous inquiry a Unilateral Undertaking (UU) pursuant to S106 of the
1990 Act was submitted, which deals with the payment of a sum towards the
provision of affordable housing. That UU remains extant. An additional UU has
now also been submitted, dated 4 December 2019, which is designed to make
provision for the implementation of a sustainable transport strategy. I make
reference to these UUs later in the decision.
5. A statement of common ground (SoCG) sets out matters of agreement, and
those remaining in dispute. In general it is fair to say that 3 of the initial
reasons for refusal of the proposal remain in play and set 3 parameters for
disagreement. These reasons for refusal are numbers 1, 2 and 7, which deal
with the impact of the proposal on the character and openness of the area, the
locational acceptability of the site, and the impact of the proposal on particular
characteristics of the site. In addition there is disagreement on whether the
so-called tilted balance should apply in this case, either that contained within
Policy CC01 of the Managing Development Delivery Local Plan document
(MDDLP) or within paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF).
6. Although there is no disagreement that the Council can presently demonstrate
a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land, and that it has met the housing
delivery test, evidence was heard on housing matters. However it is accepted
that the tilted balance cannot apply in this case through the lack of a 5 year
housing land supply. Any tilted balance would have to rely on the most
important policies for determining the appeal being out of date, or the
invocation of the alternative test set out in the development plan. I turn to
policy matters next.
Policy Background
7. I deal here with the most important policies for determining the appeal, and
other policies of relevance which require further examination. It is agreed by
the main parties that for the purposes of paragraph 11d) of the NPPF Policies
CP9 and CP11 of the Wokingham Borough Core Strategy (CS) of 2010, along
with Policy CC02 of the MDDLP are most important policies. There is
disagreement in relation to CS Policy CP17. These policies have been much
debated and a number of appeal decisions have been brought to my attention.
I deal with the policies in turn.
8. Policy CP17 relates to housing delivery. It sets a minimum requirement for
housing to be provided in the period to 2026. Both parties agree that the
requirement (of at least 13230 homes) is now out of date, and this is common
ground in a number of previous appeal decisions. The requirement was based
on the South East Plan, which no longer exists, and has been overtaken by
more up to date assessments of need. Quite rightly the policy includes
provision for a rolling 5 year supply of sites, as required by the NPPF. The
policy also includes measures which are designed to offer flexibility in bringing
land forward, and in identifying future land supply. This appeal seeks to
provide housing to assist in meeting the requirement. To that extent the policy
is clearly relevant1. It is axiomatic that housing requirements change over
time, and any policy seeking to set out a forward supply trajectory has to cope
with both the change in the requirement and the variability of delivery. It is
not an exact science. For that reason no doubt, as well as to enable supply
beyond the identified requirement at any one time, the policy does not seek to
set a cap on housing numbers, which gives it flexibility. Similarly, the phasing
requirements are set out as averages, which further allows for flexibility. The
policy sets out the manner in which it would like and indeed expect
1 In this regard I disagree with the previous Inspector
development to proceed, but the variables associated with housing provision
make strict adherence to policy aspirations a difficult, if not impossible, task.
9. In such circumstances I find it difficult to accept the suggestion that the whole
policy should be regarded as being out of date because the housing
requirement has changed, the delivery has not been in strict conformity with
aspirations, or that there has been a change to the NPPF in the interim period.
Arguments that such matters can be decisive in a judgement on whether a
policy of this nature is or is not out of date seem to me to risk placing an undue
burden on planning authorities which by their nature are unlikely to have the
resources to provide nimble responses to background changes of that kind.
The NPPF does not suggest that a policy can be said to be out of date as soon
as housing requirements change but requires periodic reviews, and the Council
has carried out its own assessments. In any event what is clear on the ground
is that Policy CP17 has provided no hindrance to the provision of a 5 year
supply of housing land or the significant surplus of houses delivered in the
recent past. In essence CP17 is working despite the housing requirement
within it being expressed at a lower level than is currently agreed. On balance
I regard Policy CP17 as being not out of date overall despite the fact that the
housing figures mentioned are.
10. I turn, then, to whether Policy CP17 is a ‘most important’ policy for the
determination of the proposal. In that it sets out the intentions for housing
provision it seems indisputable to me that it is important in the widest sense of
planning for the Borough. However it is not a development management policy
for individual applications. Individual site allocations, proposals and
applications respond to the aspirations of the policy, but the policy itself cannot
play a significant role in assessing whether the detail of any application is
acceptable. For that reason it is my judgement that Policy CP17 is not one of
the most important policies for determining this proposal. For the purposes of
the tilted balance flowing from NPPF paragraph 11, whether or not the policy is
out of date (as above) therefore becomes a moot point. That does not,
however mean that it has no role in the planning balance, to which I turn later.
11. Other appeals brought to my attention in evidence clearly respond to the
evidence heard in respect of those particular proposals. I cannot take any of
those decisions and judgements to be binding on my consideration of this
proposal. None therefore provides a conclusive finding in relation to Policy
CP17. In any event, in the context of this appeal, the status of Policy CP17 is
not a definitive matter, and in this I agree with the Inspector who considered
the Wyvols Field appeal2.
12. Policy CP9 seeks to set out the scale and location of development proposals.
Hurst falls within a category described as a limited development location. In
such locations (and elsewhere) the scale of development proposals is expected
to reflect the existing or proposed levels of facilities and services at or in the
location, together with their accessibility. The objectives of the policy clearly
follow the intentions of the NPPF in seeking to guide development to locations
where travel is reduced and a choice of travel mode is likely to be available. In
my judgement this policy is therefore consistent with the NPPF and should be
regarded as being up to date.
2 APP/X0360/W/17/3170340
13. Policy CP11 deals with development outside identified settlement limits. The
objective is clearly stated to be the protection of the separate identity of
settlements and maintenance of the quality of the environment. Development
which does not fall within a specified range of criteria will not normally be
allowed. Although the use of the word normally implies some discretion applies
where material considerations might lead to a different conclusion, it does not
suggest that there would be a balancing exercise carried out of the type
envisaged by the NPPF. Although not going as far as indicating that the
countryside should be protected for its own sake the policy is to some degree
out of kilter with the more balanced approach of the NPPF. Hence its
consistency with the NPPF is reduced and any conflict with the policy is also
reduced. However the lack of consistency is limited and any conflict with the
policy will still attract significant weight.
14. Policy CC02 follows on from Policy CP9 and sets development limits for
settlements. It can only be regarded as a logical extension from the
expectation of both the strategy for the scale and location of development, and
the numbers of dwellings set out in Policy CP17. The housing requirement has
changed over time and that can have implications for development limits, but
there is nothing in this case which leads me to believe that the limits are
currently inappropriate for Hurst, or across the Borough in general. In that
sense I have nothing before me to show that the limits are necessarily out of
date. That is simply a proposition based on the fact that housing requirements
have risen and that of necessity more space will be needed around villages or
other settlements to address the requirement. To accept that proposition
would mean that the development limits had been set based on site capacity
studies of great accuracy, with no scope for a change in capacity by increasing
or decreasing density (for example). Nothing to that effect has been
suggested.
15. I also do not accept as a proposition the premise that policies should be
regarded as being out of date by inference based on housing numbers set in a
different policy, as appears to be the case here. Analysis and judgement are
required. Although there have been developments permitted outside
development limits, I am informed that there were good reasons for this, and
that it does not indicate that development limits generally should be
disregarded. Until it can be shown more persuasively that settlement limits are
out of step with housing requirements, I am not satisfied that it has been
shown that there is inconsistency with the NPPF to the extent that Policy CC02
should be regarded as being not up to date. In this regard I differ from
previous Inspectors to some extent, but only in the weight to be given to
conflict with the policy. As noted in the High Court judgement in Wokingham
and SoS for Housing, Communities and Local Government v Taylor Wimpey UK
Limited and others3, the judgement of the Inspector was upheld in relation to
the basket of most important policies even though there was some conflict
between the policies and the NPPF.
16. On the basis of the foregoing paragraphs I have found some minor
inconsistency with the NPPF in the most important policies. But taken as a
whole I do not accept that the basket of most important policies is out of date.
For this reason paragraph 11d) of the NPPF (the tilted balance) is not engaged.
Even had I agreed with other Inspectors that the development limits of Policy
3 [2019] EWHC 3158 (Admin)
CC02 should be regarded as being out of date this would not make the whole
policy out of date, or the basket of most important policies as a whole out of
date. In this respect my judgement accords with other Inspectors and is
supported by the High Court judgement set out above.
17. Policy CC01 of the MDDLP is also relevant and sets out its own tilted balance in
part 2 of the policy. Essentially its wording largely follows the now superseded
2012 version of the NPPF in setting a test of whether relevant policies are out
of date, and if so invoking a presumption in favour of development unless any
adverse impacts of development would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the NPPF as a
whole. The policy itself, in referring to relevant (as opposed to most
important) policies shows inconsistency with the NPPF. It is, to that extent, out
of date. Even were I to agree that the policy should be afforded full weight
some of the relevant policies to be taken into account which are in play in this
case, as set out above, should not be regarded as being out of date.
18. Other relevant policies for the purpose of assessment against Policy CC01
advanced by the Appellant as being out of date are CP1, CP3, CP5, CP6 and
CC04. CP1 is an overarching policy seeking sustainable development. It may
not exactly follow some of the phraseology of the NPPF but its aims are clearly
aligned with national objectives. The policy has enough consistency with the
NPPF to be assessed as being up to date. Similar comments apply to the
general principles for development laid out in Policy CP3, the objectives for
managing travel demand in Policy CP6, and the aims of Policy CC04 for
sustainable design and construction. The policies may have detailed wording
which does not reflect the latest version of the NPPF but in my judgement the
objectives closely match national policy. They should be regarded as being up
to date. Policy CP5 has a degree of inconsistency with the NPPF in its
affordable housing threshold, albeit not wholly in relation to this proposal. That
point is therefore of little relevance in the determination of this appeal.
19. Taking all of the relevant policies into account it is my judgement that they
should not be deemed to be out of date such that the tilted balance of Policy
CC01 should apply.
20. I note here that the Council is working on a replacement local plan which will
take housing and other matters forward in the future. That process is in its
early stages and can as yet be given no weight. Similarly, although I have
noted the intention to bring forward a neighbourhood plan for Hurst, this too is
at a very early stage and can likewise be given no weight at present.
Main Issues
21. The main issues in the appeal are:
(a) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area;
(b) Whether the location of the site is appropriate in relation to sustainability
objectives to limit the need to travel and offer a choice of transport modes.
Reasons
Character and Appearance
22. The appeal site has no formal designation and lies within the Open Clay
Lowlands landscape character type of the Berkshire Landscape Character
Assessment of 2003, and the Hurst River Terrace in the finer grain of the
Wokingham District Landscape Character Assessment of 2004. In general
these studies have a degree of commonality in identifying the characteristics of
the locality. These characteristics include a flat to gently undulating landform,
scattered settlement, a working agricultural landscape with variable field sizes,
hedgerows and wooded areas, and regular drainage ditches. Horizons tend to
be of a wooded nature, and the Hurst River Terraces are identified as having a
degree of openness, with lanes connecting settlements.
23. The appeal site does not exhibit the openness which may be found elsewhere
but has relatively strong vegetated boundary features which offer a degree of
enclosure when seen from Lodge Road. It has the character of a small
overgrown paddock, albeit with a container and other minor structures present
on the land. In my judgement the site is an important component of the open
space which separates the northern and southern arms of the identified
settlement of Hurst/Whistley Green. It is, however, not exceptional in itself,
and cannot be regarded as a valued landscape for the purposes of NPPF
paragraph 170. When travelling between the northern arm (Whistley Green)
and the southern arm on the approach to Sawpit Road, the clear character is
that of a rural and largely undeveloped tract of land to the east of Lodge Road.
The presence of Badgers Bottom to the north of the appeal site is no more than
a minor intrusion into the rural scene, located as it is behind significant
vegetation. I find it stretching a point too far to describe the land to the north
of the appeal site as being developed in the sense of it being related to the
settlement pattern. It is simply a well concealed country house in extensive
grounds.
24. The Old Lodge on the western side of Lodge Road has an entirely different
relationship with the countryside around it. However, as it is located outside
the open space between Whistley Green and Sawpit Road it does not register
as having any significant impact on the character of that open space. Nursery
Close to the south, and the houses beyond that, are the first real sign of the
‘built up’ area proper, and it is here that they delineate the settlement
boundary as set out in the development plan. It is only at its southern
boundary where the appeal site comes close to existing development within the
settlement. I therefore reject any notion that the appeal site is developed on 3
of its sides.
25. It is not disputed that development of the site would change its character.
Housing, the access road, gardens and realignment of hedgerows would be a
fundamental change. As I have observed the site is an important component
of the rural open space between northern and southern arms of the village. It
serves a purpose in retaining the rural character along Lodge Road, and in my
judgement it therefore has a moderate degree of susceptibility to change. The
magnitude of the change if development were to take place would be at a
similarly moderate level, leading to an overall moderate and adverse impact on
the character of the landscape in this location. It is axiomatic that any impact
would reduce with distance, but given that the appeal site is important to the
gap between the developed areas the impact in the immediate locality would
be more keenly felt.
26. In visual terms the site also performs a function in clearly forming part of the
gap between developed areas. It is visible from the permissive path to the
west, particularly when leaves have fallen from the trees. Although the
boundary trees and hedgerows along the roadside of the site itself limit
visibility of the paddock area the boundary is an attractive (if unkempt) feature
in its own right. Users of the permissive path can be regarded as sensitive to
visual change since many of them will be using the path for recreational
purposes. The change which would ensue from the development would be
locally significant and would be perceived as the extension of built development
into the open countryside. The new access would be a particularly urbanising
feature with direct views into a cul-de-sac of large houses.
27. Furthermore, the proposed dwellings would be seen from Tape Lane, albeit
across the intervening open field. Nonetheless the houses would project above
and between existing vegetation, again emphasising the extension of built
development into the countryside. I accept that a landscaping scheme could
address this to a degree over time, but 5 houses on the site are unlikely to be
wholly hidden. Taken overall I consider that the visual impact of the proposal
would result in moderate harm.
28. The net result of the proposal would be that there would be a harmful impact
to both the character and appearance of the area for the reasons set out
above. The development would not respect the transition between the built up
area and the countryside. The fact that an area of open land would be retained
to the north of Badgers Bottom is not sufficient to ameliorate this harm. The
harm would be at the upper end of the moderate scale. As such the proposal
would be in conflict with most important policies CC02 and CP11, and this
attracts significant weight. I also find conflict with Policies CP1 and CP3 of the
Core Strategy in so far as the proposal would fail to maintain or enhance the
high quality of the environment, would be detrimental to the landscape and
would not be of appropriate character.
Location
29. Hurst and Whistley Green as a single entity has a range of facilities which are
available to the residents. These include a village store and post office, bakery
and takeaway, primary school, playing fields, village hall, nursery, public
houses, places of worship and allotments. There is also a bus service which
runs through the settlement and connects with Wokingham and Reading via
Twyford and Winnersh. All those settlements have main line railway stations.
There are a number of employment opportunities around the settlement,
though I have no evidence of the realistic opportunities for employment at
these locations, or the number of employees at each one. Against this
background I have a significant amount of evidence relating to the potential for
walking, cycling and the use of public transport for access to services and
facilities. I have taken note of the guidelines issued by the CIHT4 and others
relating to walking distances but note that these are guidelines only and are
not expected to apply in all locations, because other matters also influence
choice.
30. To start with walking, it would be fair to say that the appeal site is about as far
from the village store as it is possible to be whilst being just outside the
settlement boundary. The walking distance is about 1300m, though this would
not necessarily put off fit and active people who were not expecting to carry
much weight in shopping. But distance is not the only indicator of whether a
walk will be undertaken. In this case the walk would be along largely unlit
4 Charted Institute of Highways and Transportation
roads, and along one stretch of unlit Sawpit Road the lack of a footpath would
be a disincentive to walkers. I do not agree with the assessment of the
Appellant that this is a road used, in effect, as a shared surface. It is not
heavily trafficked, but is nonetheless an access route to the village hall,
nursery, primary school, Barber Close and Martineau Lane among others. It is
also the bus route. I walked the road on several occasions and did not
consider it to be akin to a shared surface. It has not been designed as such,
and traffic does not seem to behave as it would on a designed shared surface,
by reducing speed and being aware that pedestrians may be present. Traffic
behaves as one would expect on a 30mph village street with parked vehicles
present – by taking avoiding action where necessary, but not seemingly being
aware of any increased propensity for pedestrian activity.
31. In any event it is not a pleasant pedestrian route. The presence of parked cars
forces pedestrians towards the centre of the relatively narrow carriageway. It
is for the most part impossible to use the verge on the northern side as it has
been churned up by parked vehicles. In darkness this would be a further
hazard. Further towards the village centre there is formal footpath, but this is
variable in width and I am not satisfied that it would be wholly suitable for
anyone with impaired mobility or with small children. In addition it is
necessary to cross the road in order to continue on the footpath close to the
school, and then cross back because of the discontinuous nature of the path.
The second crossing point outside the school is also a pinch point for traffic
because of the presence of parked vehicles outside the school, and this can
make crossing more difficult. Furthermore the pedestrian, if heading for the
village store, then has to cross the A321 on 2 occasions. In short I do not
consider that the pedestrian route to the village is in any way an attractive
route for pedestrians. I am sceptical that it would be used much, if at all.
32. The walk to the village store could of course take a detour along Tape Lane,
but this involves further walking along a stretch of road with no footway. Tape
Lane serves a number of residential properties and is unlikely to be a
reasonable option because of the likelihood of conflict with vehicular traffic.
There is a further option for pedestrians to reach the village store, which would
involve crossing Lodge Road and using the permissive path to the north before
re-crossing Lodge Road and walking through Whistley Green to meet the
footpath at the northern end of the settlement. But the crossing of Lodge Road
twice and the unsurfaced and unlit nature of the permissive path would make
this an unattractive alternative route for day to day needs. Taking these
matters in the round it is my judgement that even with the new stretch of
footpath alongside Lodge Road which is proposed the walk to the village store
area would be most unlikely to be a regularly viable option for the majority of
occupants of the development.
33. I do of course accept that some facilities in the village are considerably closer
than the village store, such as the school and village hall. These fall within
what would normally be regarded as reasonable walking distances. Even so
the unattractiveness of walking along Sawpit Road applies to these destinations
too, and must call in to question whether pedestrian access would occur in
practice. In my judgement it would not occur on most occasions. Finally, I
have considered the potential for any person to walk to Twyford Station. This
would take about half an hour, but again suffers from the fact that the
permissive path would have to be used in part, and that there would be a
stretch of the walk where no footpath exists. Distance and footpath
configuration suggest that this would be an unlikely option.
34. Before turning to other modes of transport I address the suggestion that
occupants of the development would walk to work if they were employed at
premises in or around the settlement. I do not believe that they would be
likely to do so. This is because of the nature of the pedestrian walks available.
The permissive path to the south of the appeal site is unlit, gravel surfaced but,
as shown on my site visits, is prone to becoming muddy and slippery with
falling leaves. This would not be the case at all times of the year but
nonetheless for much of the time the route would be unattractive for
pedestrians. Other business locations would have similar and other pedestrian
access drawbacks resulting from the use of the permissive path, Sawpit Road
or village streets with no footpaths. I therefore do not consider that there is
any strong likelihood of any person employed locally choosing to walk to work
from the appeal site.
35. Turning to the potential for cycle use, this seems to me to be a somewhat more
viable option. I observed a number of cyclists using local roads on my site
visits. However, it is acknowledged that the use of the busier roads, including
Lodge Road (especially where it meets the national speed limit) would be likely
to be used only by the more confident cyclist. I do not rule out the use of
cycles for access to and from the appeal site, but this must be tempered by the
fact that Lodge Road has the potential to be an intimidating route, as implicitly
acknowledged by the Appellant’s suggestion that cyclists could walk as far as
Sawpit Road. In my judgement cycling is not likely to be a significant
alternative mode of transport used by occupants of the appeal site.
36. Public transport is available, by bus, in the settlement. The service, with
destinations as set out above (and others along the route) runs 6 days a week,
at roughly hourly times on weekdays but more infrequently on Saturdays.
Access to the bus would be on Sawpit Road, quite close to the appeal site. As
a hail and ride service there would be no need to walk as far as the ‘formal’
stop at the junction of Barber Close, though waiting on Sawpit Road would not
be without difficulty because of the drawbacks the road exhibits (as set out
above). The provision of a bus shelter as proposed may encourage use but
would require the walk along the part of Sawpit Road with no footpath.
37. The Inspector for the Valley Nurseries appeal5 accepted that the bus service
would provide a reasonable alternative to the use of a private motor vehicle on
most days of the week. That is against the background of there being
different, and in my judgement preferable, access arrangements to bus stops
from Valley Nurseries.
38. In any event what is a reasonable alternative is not necessarily the same as a
practical alternative for many eventualities. For example, a bus service to
Twyford railway station might well encourage commuters to use that facility.
But I question whether an hourly service would offer sufficient certainty and
flexibility to be attractive. A late running bus and missed connection, with no
replacement service for an hour, would not be likely to encourage reliance on
the service for many people. Indeed, the putative decision of the previous
Inspector in this appeal noted the inflexibility of the proposition and, although I
have made my own assessment, I cannot disagree with that finding. Taken
5 APP/X0360/W/17/3171083
with the relatively early times at which the service ceases in the
afternoon/evening the limited timetable suggests to me that it would not be an
attractive option for anyone who required a bus connection for commuting.
Rather it seems to me that the service is adequate for daytime trips to local
destinations for leisure or other non-critical visits.
39. It is right to say that bus services in rural areas cannot be expected to be the
equivalent of those in urban locations, and the reliance on the ‘good’ definition
of the Council may be unrealistic in some cases, including village locations.
Each proposal needs to be assessed individually. In this case I do not consider
that the service through Hurst in either direction would encourage the potential
occupants of the appeal site to use it other than for occasional non essential
purposes even with the provision of subsidised travel for an initial period. It is
simply not convenient enough to be able to replace the reliance on private
vehicles.
40. Taking all of these matters together it is my judgement that the location of the
appeal site would not follow sustainable principles. Residents of the site would
not be likely to take advantage of walking, cycling or public transport to any
significant degree. In my judgement this is not an accessible location as
required by Policy CP9. In this respect it is distinguishable from the Valley
Nurseries site which has an entirely different relationship with surrounding
streets, facilities and access to public transport. The likely reliance on private
vehicles would not be in tune with the NPPF objectives and would be in conflict
with most important policy CP9 and Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP6 which,
taken together, seek to ensure that development provides for sustainable
forms of transport to allow choice (amongst other things). In this instance I do
not accept that there would be a realistic and viable choice for the majority of
people.
Other Matters
41. Some time was taken up at the inquiry debating past and future housing
requirement and supply. I am clear that the Council has made significant
strides in addressing past backlogs and bringing forward land for development.
The fact that it has a satisfactory supply position now, and has satisfied the
housing delivery test, is testament to that. Indeed I accept that at present the
Council is following the advice to significantly boost supply. Future
requirements are bound to change, as they have in previous years, and the
future Local Plan will be expected to take steps to address the requirement. I
accept that the Local Plan will be some 2 years or more in preparation, but I
am not satisfied that it has been shown on the balance of probabilities that it is
likely that housing supply in the near future will decline as predicted by the
Appellant. Housing predictions are a difficult area and precision is impossible.
At present the Council seems to be in a position of supplying what is necessary
whilst being in the nascent stage of preparing future plans. When those plans
become clearer future decisions will be able to take account of likely future
supply. I must deal with the situation as presently acknowledged, with the
Council having a 5 year supply of deliverable sites and a recent strong
performance in delivery.
42. Affordable housing continues to be provided in the Borough though there is still
a need for more. The need has been described in the planning officer’s report
as critical, and by the Council’s expert witness on affordable housing as
significant. In either case the provision of affordable housing is something to
which I attach significant weight notwithstanding the Council’s claimed pipeline
of supply.
43. In regard to affordable housing the S106 Undertaking of 2018 made provision
for a contribution to assist in its provision. The more recent 2019 Undertaking
makes provision for the implementation of a transport strategy. This includes
such matters and grants towards the purchase of electric vehicles and bicycles,
as well as charging points. There would also be an element of subsidised
public transport, a welcome pack for each home, and the provision of a bus
stop shelter. Most of these matters deal with short term encouragement to
change behaviour but, because of the nature of the site location, are unlikely to
provide long term results. As I have concluded that the appeal should be
dismissed it is not necessary for me to consider these matters in further detail.
44. A number of other matters were brought up at application and appeal stage by
third parties, including the St Nicholas Hurst Parish Council. These matters,
where material, have been addressed by the Appellant or can be dealt with by
condition or obligation. In particular the Council maintains no objection to the
proposal on the basis of matters including highway safety, flood risk, drainage,
ecological matters, design and school place availability. The main issues in
dispute therefore remain as above, and my findings on those must be balanced
against the benefits of the proposal, to which I turn next.
Conclusions and Planning Balance
45. I deal first with the benefits advanced by the Appellant. These are dealt with in
the light of the 3 strands of sustainable development set out in the NPPF.
46. I accept that the development would provide some economic benefit. New
house building provides both direct economic benefits in jobs, but also indirect
benefits by contributing to the financial turnover of suppliers. There would also
be a boost to the local economy from the initial occupancy and post occupancy
spending. These are material considerations which attract moderate weight.
47. In relation to the social strand of sustainable development the provision of
market homes is important and is a material consideration of some weight.
However as there would be just 5 dwellings in a situation where the Council
can show a 5 year supply of deliverable sites, and where the housing delivery
test has been met, this benefit should not attract more than moderate weight.
I recognise that the provision of affordable housing (in this case a contribution
towards its provision) is a benefit, and in an area with an acknowledged
significant, if not acute, need for such homes, this is of significant weight.
Evidence from the Parish Council suggest that the provision of 5 new homes
would do little extra to sustain what is an already vibrant community with a
number of existing services. There is no tangible benefit shown in this respect.
48. Taking into account environmental considerations it is acknowledged by the
Appellant that there would be some landscape harm, but in an area which has
no landscape designation and which is not a valued landscape. This can be
seen as a comparative benefit only in the sense that landscape with a greater
importance is not involved. It is not a benefit of itself even allowing for
mitigation planting.
49. Set against these benefits are the matters above in which I have identified
harm. This involves harm to the character and appearance of the landscape at
the top of the moderate scale, and conflict with the development plan. In
addition there is conflict with the sustainable principles of both the NPPF and
the development plan, and resultant harm from the likely increase in the use of
private vehicles with no adequate option to access alternative modes of
transport. This matter carries significant weight.
50. Although it is apparent that the proposal is not in conflict with some
development plan policies, such as housing supply policy CP17 and policy
CC04, taken overall the proposal is in conflict with the most important policies
for determining this appeal, and with the development plan as a whole. The
proposal cannot be regarded as sustainable development and there is
consequent conflict with policy CP1. There are no material considerations of
sufficient weight which indicate that a decision should be made other than in
accordance with the development plan.
51. Even had I concluded that the tilted balance of the NPPF or Policy CC01 should
apply my overall judgement is that the harm I have identified significantly and
demonstrably outweighs the benefits in this case. By either route to a
decision, therefore, the appeal must be unsuccessful. The proposed
development simply fails to address the fundamental shortcomings associated
with the appeal site. Put simply, this would be the wrong development in the
wrong place. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be
dismissed.
Philip Major
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Ms H Sargent Of Counsel
She called
Ms B Crafer BHons Chartered Landscape Architect, Wokingham
(Landscape Borough Council. Spoke at the landscape round
Architecture) DipLA table session.
DipUD CMLI
Mr R Johnson HND Senior Assistant Engineer, Wokingham Borough
Council.
Mr N Bailey Interim Assistant Director, Housing and Place
Commissioning, Wokingham Borough Council.
Mr I Bellinger BSc(Hons) Manager for Growth and Delivery, Wokingham
DipTP MRTPI Borough Council.
Mr S Taylor BTP Planning Specialist, Wokingham Borough Council.
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Mr M Bedford Queen’s Counsel
He called
Ms S Gruner BHons Associate Landscape Architect and Urban
(Landscape Designer, CSA Environmental. Spoke at the
Architecture) CMLI landscape round table session.
Mr T J Wall BA(Hons) Associate Partner, i-Transport LLP.
MSc MCIHT CMILT
Mr D Bond BA(Hons) Partner, Woolf Bond Planning LLP.
MRTPI
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Mrs L Robinson Hurst Neighbourhood Plan Working Group.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY AND SUBMISSIONS SUBMITTED
AFTER THE INQUIRY
1 Notification letter of the inquiry
2 Opening statement on behalf of the Appellant
3 Opening statement on behalf of the Council
4 Comparative table of distances from the appeal site and Valley
Nurseries within Hurst
5 Table of affordable housing need
6 Comparative table of open market house prices
7 Extract of the Core Strategy key diagram
8 Extract from the Managing Development Delivery Document Local
Plan, page 67
9 Extract from the Managing Development Delivery Document Local
Plan, pages 173 and 174
10 Unilateral Undertaking dated 4 December 2019
11 Table of expected housing land supply from 2006 to 2016
12 Sefton MBC v SoS for the Environment, Transport and the
Regions, January 2002
13 Written submission from Mrs Robinson
14 Closing Submissions on behalf of the Council
15 Closing submissions on behalf of the Appellant
16 Late information on affordable housing from the Council and the
Appellant’s response