Case Reference: 3238460

Appeal Decision
Inquiry Held on 28, 29, 30 and 31 January 2020
Site visit made on 31 January 2020
by Harold Stephens BA MPhil Dip TP MRTPI FRSA
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 18th March 2020
Appeal Ref: APP/W1145/W/19/3238460
Land at Caddywell Lane/Burwood Lane, Great Torrington, Devon
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Torridge District
Council.
• The application Ref 1/0340/2019/OUTM, dated 12 April 2019, was refused by notice
dated 12 August 2019.
• The development proposed is an outline application for residential development of up to
181 dwellings and ancillary development with vehicular access from Hoopers Way,
Burwood Lane and Caddywell Lane.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an outline
application for residential development of up to 181 dwellings and ancillary
development with vehicular access from Hoopers Way, Burwood Lane and
Caddywell Lane, Great Torrington, Devon in accordance with the terms of the
application, Ref 1/0340/2019/OUTM dated 12 April 2019, and the plans
submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule attached to
this Decision.
Procedural Matters
2. Planning permission was refused for the proposal under delegated powers on
12 August 2019 for three reasons. Reason for Refusal (RfR) 3 alleged that
insufficient information has been provided by the Appellant to satisfy the
Council that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of surface water
drainage. The Council, having taken advice from the County Council’s Flood
Risk Management Officer, now accepts that sufficient information has been
provided and it therefore has no `in principle’ drainage objection. It was
agreed that RfR3 is no longer in dispute between the main parties and that
the matter can be dealt with on the basis of appropriate planning conditions.
3. The application was submitted in outline with all matters except access
reserved for subsequent approval. It was agreed that the plans on which the
appeal should be determined are:
• A Location Plan - Drawing Number AP01 (Doc A20)
• A Revised Access Plan - Drawing Number 2696.14B (Doc 36)
A Proposed Site Layout Drawing AP02 (Doc A21) was submitted for illustrative
purposes.
4. In addition, the application was supported by a number of reports and
technical information in accordance with the Council’s validation requirements.
Details of these documents are set out in the Inquiry Documents A1-A27.
They include an Aboricultural Assessment, an Archaeology Assessment, a
Design and Access Statement (DAS), an Ecological Assessment, a Flood Risk
Assessment, Contamination Reports, Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessments, a Planning Statement, a Transport Assessment and a Tree
Survey Report.
5. I held a Case Management Conference (CMC) on 5 December 2019. At the
CMC the main issues were identified, how the evidence would be dealt with at
the Inquiry and timings. It was agreed that questions raised by interested
persons on matters relating to traffic and flood risk would be dealt with by the
Appellant’s specialist witnesses on the opening day of the Inquiry. It was
further agreed that evidence on Housing Land Supply and Landscape could
best be dealt with by separate topic based Round Table Sessions (RTS)
supported by dedicated Statements of Common Ground (SoCG). In the weeks
following the CMC both main parties continued discussions on the appeal to
ensure that matters of dispute were clear and that all matters of agreement
(non-disputed matters) were documented in either SoCG or in draft Planning
Conditions. In this case three SoCG were agreed (see below) by the main
parties before the Inquiry opened and following the Housing Land Supply RTS
on 29 January 2020 Updated Housing Land Supply Tables were provided in
Doc APP10.
• General SoCG (Doc 37)
• Housing Land Supply SoCG (Doc 38)
• Landscape SoCG (Doc 39)
6. At the Inquiry, a s106 Planning Obligation was submitted. The Planning
Obligation is made by an Agreement between the Landowners, the Appellant,
the Torridge District Council (TDC) and Devon County Council (DCC).1 The
Agreement addresses all of the matters sought by the District and County
Councils in connection with the provision of community and other services
arising from the proposed development. The Planning Obligation is signed and
dated 13 February 2020. It is a material consideration in this case. A
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Compliance Schedule was submitted in
support of the Planning Obligation.2 I return to the Planning Obligation later
in this decision.
Main Issues
7. In light of the above I consider that the main issues in this case are:
• Whether the proposal would provide an appropriate site for development
having regard to the most important and up-to-date policies in the
development plan and national guidance;
1 LPA2
2 LPA1
• Whether the Council can demonstrate a five year housing land supply
and whether paragraph 11 (d) of the NPPF is engaged;
• The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the
surrounding landscape particularly in relation to the central and western
fields of the development;
• Whether the proposal makes adequate provision for affordable housing
and for any additional infrastructure/services, such as education,
drainage, transport and public open space arising from the
development.
Reasons
The proposed development and the appeal site
8. The appeal site comprises three existing agricultural fields located on the
south side of the town of Great Torrington abutting the existing settlement
boundary and urban area. For the purposes of this appeal they are generally
referred to as the eastern, central and western fields although they are also
referred to as Phases 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Part of the western field (Phase
3) is excluded from the appeal site.
9. The proposed development seeks outline planning permission for up to 181
dwellings. Vehicular access is proposed from Caddywell Lane to the north of
the western field and from Hoopers Way to the north of the eastern field.
Within the site a 5.5m wide access road would continue through the centre of
the site, with 1.8m wide footways on both sides. Off the access road a mix of
shared surface cul-de-sacs and driveways are proposed. The proposed
illustrative site layout plan (Doc A21) demonstrates how 181 2, 3 and 4
bedroom dwellings and parking provision could be accommodated on the site
with associated open space (including play provision) and landscaping. It is
supported by a detailed DAS (Doc A6).
10. The land currently comprises agricultural land with no significant internal
features except for its topography and the hedge banks/trees defining its
boundaries. The eastern and central fields slope generally from north to south
whilst the western field slopes away to the north west. The total area of the
appeal site is about 9.35 hectares.
Planning History
11. The planning history of the appeal site is set out at Section 3 of the General
SoCG3 and there is no need for me to repeat that here. Suffice it to say that
outline planning permission for up to 60 dwellings on the eastern field was
granted in December 2016.4 I also note that outline planning permission was
granted for a 50 space car park, access, landscaping and ancillary
infrastructure immediately to the west of the appeal site in June 2018.5
3 Doc 37
4 1/0781/2015/OUTM
5 1/0702/2017OUT
Planning Policy
12. The statutory development plan includes the North Devon and Torridge Local
Plan 2011-2031 (NDTLP). The NDTLP, adopted in October 2018, is currently
the principal relevant development plan document for the purposes of Section
38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and section 70(2) of
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The parties are agreed that the
planning policies which are most relevant to this appeal are set out at Section
4 in the General SoCG and are not repeated here.6
13. A Great Torrington Neighbourhood Plan (GTNP) 2018-2031 is under
preparation. The GTNP has been subject to examination, with the Examiner’s
report received on the 8 December 2019 and subsequently published. The
Examiner concluded that the GTNP could meet the basic conditions, subject to
the acceptance of the recommendations contained in his report and that if the
recommended modifications are accepted (by the District Council), the GTNP
2018 - 2031 should be submitted to a referendum. On the 6 February 2020
the Town Council agreed to accept and incorporate the Examiner’s
recommendations into the GTNP; also agreeing to the extension of the 56 day
deadline for the Plan to be subject to referendum.
14. The GTNP is currently programmed to go to the Full Council meeting of TDC
on the 6 April 2020 to consider the findings of the Examiner’s report and seek
authorisation for it to subsequently go out to referendum. In parallel the GTNP
is being amended by the Town Council to reflect the findings of the
examination. The GTNP will not be proceeding to referendum in advance of
the TDC meeting on the 6 April 2020. In my view, the weight to be
attributed to the emerging GTNP policies is currently limited by the
provisions of paragraph 48 of the NPPF, recognising the stage of
preparation. The relevant policies which are considered material are set
out in Section 4 of the General SoCG and are not repeated here.
First Issue - Whether the proposal would provide an appropriate site for
development having regard to the most important and up-to-date policies
in the development plan and national guidance.
15. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and section
70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 make clear that applications
for development must be determined in accordance with the development
plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
16. The NDTLP was recently adopted in October 2018. Section 4 (i) of the General
SoCG (Doc 37) sets out the policies from NDTLP which are considered
relevant to this appeal. Although I have taken into account other policies
listed in Section 4 (i), I consider the most important are: Policy ST01, Policy
STO6, Policy ST07, Policy ST08, Policy ST21 and Policy GTT.
17. It is noteworthy that the Council accepts that the eastern field of the appeal
site lies within the Great Torrington development boundary and is subject to a
housing allocation under NDTLP Policy GTT05. The Council therefore accepts
the principle of residential development on the eastern field as being in
accordance with NDTLP Policies ST06, GTT and GTT05 and acknowledges that
6 Doc 37
the 60 dwellings that would come forward on this part of the appeal site form
part of the Spatial Strategy.
18. However, the central and western fields fall outside of, but adjacent to, the
development boundary for Great Torrington. I note that Policy ST06 sets out
the Spatial Strategy and states that development will be supported within
development boundaries. Moreover, Policy ST07 supports development which
accords with the Council’s settlement hierarchy. The broad locations for
development are outlined in Policies ST06 and ST07 and these have been co-
ordinated with transport and utilities infrastructure and the provisions of
appropriate community facilities, retail, employment and open space to create
sustainable communities. To the extent that the central and western fields fall
outside the settlement boundary of Great Torrington then I accept that the
proposal conflicts with NDTLP Policy ST06 and Policy ST07.
19. Turning to Policy ST08 and GTT, the Council argues that the appeal proposal
would be in conflict with the settlement hierarchy which seeks to increase
self-containment through sustainable growth and would also undermine the
Council’s Spatial Strategy for Great Torrington (Policy GTT). It is claimed that
the proposal would disrupt the carefully planned balance of housing and
employment development and as a speculative major housing development
would not serve to address local needs and the local vision’s aspirations for
self-containment. Housing development over and above the minimum number
allocated to Great Torrington, it is said, would destroy this delicate balance
and would be in breach of the rationale of the Spatial Strategy. However, I
cannot agree with the Council’s arguments in relation to the alleged conflict
with Policy ST08 and Policy GTT for a number of reasons.
20. Firstly, it said that there is at the heart of the NDTLP the objective of
preserving or bringing about balance between homes and jobs, but the NDTLP
does not say what that balance is now or indicate what jobs to homes ratio it
aspires to achieve.
21. Secondly, I note that reliance is placed on paragraph 10.216 of the NDTLP7
which states that half of the working population of Great Torrington work in
Great Torrington. However, this does not prove there are insufficient jobs in
Great Torrington for the other half, as people may choose to work outside the
settlement where they live, for all sorts of reasons. There is no information
about how many people are commuting into Great Torrington from outside to
work and increasing the number of jobs in Great Torrington could equally
increase in-commuting as decrease out-commuting. It is plain, from the
evidence base of the NDTLP,8 that maintaining the working population in
Great Torrington at current levels requires the provision of about 1,000
dwellings. Capping the delivery of housing in Great Torrington at 632 could
result in more in-commuting, not to mention the inevitable adverse impacts
that this would have on social sustainability as the existing population ages.
22. Thirdly, from the evidence that is before me, it is plain that Great Torrington
is a highly sustainable location in itself, with good accessibility to higher level
facilities and jobs in Bideford and Barnstable, including by public transport. Its
sustainability in these terms is acknowledged within the NDTLP itself at
paragraph 10.212; in the SHLAA; and in the General SoCG at section 2 and
7 Page 156
8 APP5 Figure 60
section 8(7). In the light of this it would make no sense at all to construe the
NDTLP as placing a cap on housing in Great Torrington because of a concern
about unsustainable home to work travel patterns.
23. Fourthly, if the housing numbers in the NDTLP are firmly tied to the
employment allocations because only “balanced growth” is acceptable, there
would be a phasing policy in the NDTLP that prevented the delivery of housing
unless it came forward in tandem with employment. Plainly, there is no such
policy, and the reality is that the planning system has no way of ensuring that
either the housing or the employment actually gets delivered, let alone in
tandem.
24. Fifthly, if the NDTLP is aimed at ensuring that housing is restricted to the
numbers set out in the NDTLP for each settlement so as to always be in line
with the level of allocated employment land, why does it not cap the housing
number to that set out in the Local Plan? That is the only way to give effect to
the balance which the Council espouses. However, the NDTLP expressly states
in Policy ST08 and emphasises that the dwelling numbers for the plan area as
a whole and for individual settlements including Great Torrington are for a
minimum. The dwelling provision figures included in Policy ST08 are not
ceilings or targets and nowhere in the NDTLP is there any suggestion that
provision should be constrained to these levels.
25. Sixthly, if there was any force in the Council’s argument then logically it would
have to resist an additional 121 houses or indeed any number it thinks would
unacceptably upset the balance between homes and jobs regardless of
whether those houses are provided within or without settlement limits. Yet
that is not what the NDTLP states – it works with minimum numbers, and
whilst it expressly resists development outside settlement limits it has no
policy to the effect that housing within settlement limits will be resisted.
26. Finally, the reference to self-containment in the NDTLP appears in precisely
the same terms in respect of all settlements, no matter where they sit in the
settlement hierarchy.9 The approach to distributing housing and employment
in a coordinated, justified way is expressed in the same terms for each of the
settlements.10 The logic of the Council’s argument dictates that it must resist
housing development above the minimum numbers in the Local Plan in each
and every one of its settlements, whether proposed within or without the
settlement limits. The effect would be to turn minimum housing numbers into
maximum housing numbers. Yet this was not the Council’s approach as
explained at the Inquiry when it was suggested that additional housing in
Barnstable and Bideford would be welcomed, but not in Great Torrington. In
my view, the Council was unable to identify how the NDTLP differentiated
between these settlements particularly in relation to self-containment.
27. In overall terms I consider that all the references in the NDTLP which the
Council rely upon and which speak to self-containment have to be seen for what
they are, namely a high-level explanation of why the decision was taken as part
of the NDTLP to distribute the employment land in the manner set out in the
Plan. These references are not to be read as directing decision-makers to cap
housing delivery unless and until it comes forward in tandem with more
employment land. In this context I consider the overarching Policy ST01 in the
9 Policy ST06
10 Paragraph 4.19 of the NDTLP
NDTLP is noteworthy and relevant. It states that the two Councils covered by
the Local Plan will adopt a positive approach to all sustainable development and
work with applicants and local communities to find solutions which mean that
proposals can be approved wherever possible.
28. Furthermore, I note from the evidence that the Council considers that the most
important policy in terms of breach of the NDTLP is Policy GTT and particular
reliance is placed on Policy GTT criterion (c). However, this criterion is purely
descriptive of the allocations for Great Torrington; it is not a criterion by which
to assess non-allocated sites, whether within or without the settlement
boundary. It seems to me that this simple point undermines the Council’s
reliance on the first paragraph of the Policy GTT (under Spatial Vision) which
refers to supporting Great Torrington’s future through small to medium scale
employment and housing development. The policy itself describes, at criterion
(c), the allocations as small to medium scale, including an allocation for 140
dwellings. That shows that a site for 140 is medium scale, and a site for 181 is
of similar scale. Given the size of Great Torrington and its status as a Main
Centre, a site of this size is self-evidently of medium scale.
29. From all of the above it is clear that the central and western fields abut the
development boundary for Great Torrington but lie outside it. Development on
this part of the site and thus the proposal as a whole, would not be in
accordance with Policy ST06 and Policy ST07 of the NDTLP. However, the main
parties accept that Policy ST21 is a key consideration in this case. I agree. This
key policy was introduced towards the end of the NDTLP preparation process
specifically to provide a framework for managing the delivery of housing based
on maintaining a five year housing land supply and a particular methodology
which is integral to the development plan. I shall deal with the implications of
Policy ST21 in the context of the second issue below before returning to
conclude on the development plan later in this decision.
Second Issue - Whether the Council can demonstrate a five year housing
land supply and whether paragraph 11 (d) of the NPPF is engaged.
30. The starting point to enable an assessment of the five year housing land
supply is to establish the Housing Requirement. It is agreed between the main
parties that the overall housing requirement set out in Policy ST08 of the
NDTLP applies to Northern Devon, across the joint plan area and is not
disaggregated to individual constituent local planning authorities.11 The NDTLP
was adopted by TDC and by North Devon Council (NDC) in October 2018.
31. The NPPF at paragraph 73 requires the five-year supply to be measured
against the housing requirement in an adopted plan where the plan is less
than five years old. The NDTLP is less than five years old and the housing
requirement within the NDTLP provides the appropriate NPPF compliant figure
to use when calculating the five-year housing land supply. The housing
requirement is therefore that set out in Policy ST08 and its supporting text.
32. The NDTLP through Policy ST08 establishes a requirement of a minimum of
17,220 dwellings; equating to an average development rate of 861 dwellings
per annum over the plan period (20 years). It is agreed that, recognising the
11 Paragraph 4.20 of the NDTLP
joint nature of the NDTLP, and in accordance with the PPG,12 the five-year
housing land supply for TDC and NDC should be calculated on a joint
(aggregate) basis.
33. The base five-year requirement is five times the annual requirement of 861
dwellings or 4,305 dwellings. Any shortfall in delivery against the requirement
from previous plan years, calculated from the base date of the Plan, should be
factored into the five-year requirement calculation. From the base date of 1
April 2011 to the end of the last monitoring year, 31 March 2019, there have
been a total of 5,285 completions against a requirement of 6,888. A shortfall
of 1,603 dwellings.
34. It is agreed between the main parties that the base date of the five-year
housing land supply assessment is 1 April 2019 and that the five-year period
looking forward is 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2024.
35. I note that the NDTLP, at paragraph 4.24, adopts the Liverpool approach for
accommodating a shortfall in housing delivery in future years. The PPG13 sets
out that any shortfall from the base date of the adopted plan should be added
to the plan requirements for the next 5 year period (the Sedgefield approach)
unless a case is made (and accepted) as part of the plan-making and
examination process by the strategic policy-making authority to deal with past
under delivery over a longer period.
36. As adopted in the NDTLP, the Liverpool approach distributes and averages any
shortfall across the remainder of the plan period. There are 12 years
remaining of the plan period which establishes an annualised shortfall of
133.58 dwellings per annum. This figure multiplied by five is 667.92, rounded
to 668, and is added to the base five-year requirement of 4,305 which
produces a base line five-year requirement (without buffer) of 4,973 dwellings
(or 995 dwellings per annum).
37. The components of the calculation for the five year housing requirement
excluding buffer, as per the NDTLP and using the Liverpool approach, are
agreed to be as set out in Table 1 of the Housing Land Supply SoCG (Doc 38).
38. There is an issue over whether a buffer should be applied to the Policy ST21
calculation as contended by the Appellant. The Council disagrees with the
Appellant’s contention that Policy ST21(2) is triggered; there is no reference
to a buffer in the policy or in the supporting text to that policy. However, as
the Local Plan Inspector’s Report makes clear, modifications to ensure
housing delivery were regarded as essential in order to rectify matters that
would have led to the Plan being found unsound.14 Reference is made to the
request by the Inspector to the Councils for a policy to rectify these
shortcomings and she concludes that the maintenance of the five year
housing land supply is the most effective means by which the Councils can
ensure that decisions on housing development can continue to be made on
the basis of the strategy set out in the NDTLP.15
12 Planning Practice Guidance
13 ID: 68-031-20190722
14 Doc 2, page 6, paragraph 9
15 Doc 2, page 27, paragraphs 125 and 126
39. I appreciate that TDC wants to move away from the position set out in the
NDTLP because the NPPF states that the level of the buffer should be
determined by the HDT16 and if that is applied a 5% buffer is appropriate. I
accept what the NPPF says about the buffer is a material consideration, but it
does not follow that the approach in the NPPF should automatically be
followed. The Local Plan Inspector addressed the question of the buffer and
was well aware that the housing requirement was not being met and that a
20% buffer should be applied. She was well aware that the HDT had come in,
but she did not think this was sufficient for 5% to be applied nor did she think
it appropriate to say that in future this Council should determine the buffer by
having regard to the results of the HDT.
40. What she said was that there should be no move away from the 20% buffer
until the end of the Plan period, unless the shortfall was cleared, or the Plan
was reviewed. There is no reason therefore why the Council should be allowed
to adopt a mix and match approach. The reasons which persuaded the
Inspector to impose the 20% buffer remain as pressing today as they were
when she imposed it. If the Council maintains that the approach to the Plan in
calculating the five year housing land supply is out of date, then it must
accept that the policies of the Plan that determine when and where housing is
acceptable are also out of date because all of these policies presume the
existence of a five year housing land supply.
41. Policy ST21, with the supporting text, was therefore put forward to secure the
position. It identifies the triggers and provides the mechanism to ensure the
maintenance of a five year housing land supply. The Local Plan Inspector also
considered it appropriate to make reference in the NDTLP to the application of
the Liverpool method for the lifetime of the Plan. At the time of adoption, she
also considered it appropriate to apply a 20% buffer with the Liverpool
approach, but this may change over time.17
42. Accordingly, paragraph 4.24 of the NDTLP clearly states that the NDTLP at the
time of the adoption applies a 20% buffer:
“For the purposes of identifying and updating annually a supply of specific
deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against
the housing requirements of the Local Plan, the Liverpool method of
spreading the delivery of shortfall together with the 20% buffer shall apply
to all reports published for the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan area
until 2031 or until the Local Plan is first reviewed. In the event that the
shortfall is delivered prior to the 1 April 2031 or to the review of the Local
Plan, a buffer of 5% shall be applied to the five year housing land
requirement.”
43. In my view, the purpose of the buffer is to provide for past under delivery as
paragraph 4.25 of the NDTLP explains – it is as much part of the housing
requirement as is the base figure and is indivisible from it. It is intended to
both help ensure that under delivery from the early years of the Plan period is
made up as soon as possible and to maintain delivery to meet the remaining
16 Housing Delivery Test
17 Doc 2, page 26, paragraph 122
housing requirement. Accordingly, when paragraph 7.64 of the NDTLP (in the
context of Policy ST21) talks about monitoring against the “managed” target
“to reflect any cumulative backlog”, it must include the buffer otherwise it
would not reflect the backlog in the manner intended by the Plan as set out at
paragraph 4.25.
44. None of the prerequisites set out in the NDTLP for moving away from the 20%
buffer apply: it is not 2031, the NDTLP has not been reviewed and the
shortfall has not been delivered. Nonetheless, the Council’s Position
Statement (Doc 31) has chosen to move away from the 20% buffer citing the
introduction of the HDT, the results supporting a 5% buffer. In doing so the
Council has ignored the primacy of the development plan and its commitment
to applying the 20% buffer. If the Council is promoting that the NPPF and the
introduction of the HDT are of such material importance for the Plan’s
commitment to 20% to be put aside then in my view that should also apply to
the Liverpool approach.
45. Neither the NPPF nor the PPG refers to the Liverpool approach. The PPG states
“The level of deficit or shortfall will need to be calculated from the base
date of the adopted plan and should be added to the plan requirements
for the next 5 year period (the Sedgefield approach), then the appropriate
buffer should be applied. If a strategic policy-making authority wishes to
deal with past under delivery over a longer period, then a case may be
made as part of the plan-making and examination process…”.18
The preferred approach is clearly that of Sedgefield with alternatives derived
through plan-making, which is the position that applies here in TDC. That of
course takes us back to paragraph 4.24 of the NDTLP.
46. The Appellant points out that the HDT results are measured against household
growth and not the adopted housing requirement. I note from the evidence
presented that the household growth figures do not represent the full housing
requirement for the Local Plan area. The three year aggregate household
growth requirement for the HDT is 1,844, whereas the Local Plan aggregate
annualised requirement for three years is 2,583, before any additional uplift
for past shortfalls in delivery. Given the Local Plan’s commitment to a 20%
buffer and making up for past under-performance it would seem strange to
me to move away from this position.19 TDC’s position is that a 5% buffer
should be applied whereas the Appellant’s position is that a 20% buffer should
be applied. The Appellant has a secondary position, that is Sedgefield and
5%, the NPPF position.
47. Drawing the threads of the housing requirement together, it is clear to me
that Policy ST08 of the NDTLP sets a minimum of 17,220 dwellings over a 20
year plan period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2031. This annualises to a
minimum of 861 dwellings per annum. Paragraph 4.24 of the NDTLP plainly
states that when calculating the housing requirement, the Liverpool approach
to addressing shortfall in delivery and the application of a 20% buffer will be
applied for the lifetime of the Local Plan, until its first review or until the
shortfall is cleared. The stipulated buffer was the consequence of a conscious
decision by the Local Plan Inspector to recognise the shortfall in delivery from
18 Paragraph 031 Reference ID: 68-031-20190722
19 Mr Jacobs’ proof of evidence page 15 paragraph 4.11
the start of the Plan period. The Council’s Housing Land Supply Statement
accepts the NDTLP in part by applying the Liverpool approach but diverts in
part by applying a 5% buffer and through this approach calculates a five-year
requirement of 5,222 dwellings. I conclude that the five-year housing should
be calculated in accordance with the commitment in the NDTLP applying the
Liverpool approach and a 20% buffer producing a figure of 5,968 dwellings.20
48. In terms of Housing Supply, it was agreed in the SoCG21 submitted to the
Inquiry that minor developments consist of commitments on sites of less than
10 dwellings, some of which may have started and others which have yet to
be implemented, amounted to 586 dwellings. There are a further 576
dwellings consented from this source but not yet implemented. Allowing for a
15% discount from this source of supply both parties agreed would yield 520
dwellings within the five plan period.22 Moreover, a windfall allowance of 117
dwellings per annum applied to years 4 and 5 totalling 234 is agreed.
49. It is common ground that Policy ST21 of the NDTLP is a relevant policy in the
context of managing the delivery of housing in the NDTLP. Policy ST21
requires an annual review and an updated housing trajectory will inform the
review. In the application of clause (1) of Policy ST21, if the number of
dwelling completions across the Plan area is less than 110% of the annualised
dwelling requirement in any monitoring year, in this case 2018/19, the
provisions of that clause will be brought into force.
50. There is no dispute that the number of dwelling completions for 2018/19 was
951 dwellings, compared to an annualised (residual) dwelling requirement for
that year of 991 dwellings. The level of completions as a proportion of
dwelling requirement for that year is 96%; 14% (or 139 dwellings) below
110% of the annualised dwelling requirement required to trigger the
provisions of clause (1) of Policy ST21 (1,090 dwellings). Accordingly, it is
agreed that the provisions of clause (1) of Policy ST21 are triggered on the
basis of the level of dwelling completions achieved in 2018/19.
51. Clause (2) of Policy ST21, states that if the number of dwelling completions in
a monitoring year falls below 90% of the annualised dwelling requirement,
and the housing trajectory indicates that the rate would not recover to an
average of at least 100% for the two subsequent monitoring years, then
proposals for additional residential development outside defined settlement
limits will be supported subject to four stated criteria. It is common ground
that for the purposes of clause (2) of Policy ST21, 90% of the annual
(residual) dwelling requirement for the 2018/19 monitoring year, and without
the addition of any buffer, is 892 dwellings (991*0.9).
52. It is agreed that there were 951 dwelling completions in the 2018/19
monitoring year, providing 96% of the annual (residual) dwelling requirement,
or a surplus of 59 dwellings compared to the 90% requirement, if no buffer is
applied. On the basis of applying no buffer, it is agreed that the provisions of
clause (2) of Policy ST21 are not brought into force. The parties do not agree
the appropriate buffer to be applied, nor do they agree the assessed five year
20 Doc 38 page 12
21 Doc 38
22 Where the sites are for 1-4 dwellings or less than 0.1 hectare to allow for non-implementation or lapse rate
supply.
53. At the opening of the Inquiry, in the SoCG,23 the Council considered the total
supply of deliverable housing land for the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March
2024 to be 6,685 dwellings reflecting its Five Year Housing Land Supply
Position Statement.24 The Appellant considered the equivalent supply to be
4,874 dwellings. There were 38 sites from the Council’s five-year supply of
deliverable sites on which the parties did not agree an attributable dwelling
yield.25 As a result of the differing positions the Council calculated there would
be 6,685 dwellings (6.40 years supply using the Liverpool approach with a 5%
buffer, whereas the Appellant using Liverpool with a 20% buffer calculated
there would be 4,874 dwellings equivalent to 4.08 years supply. There is a
difference of 362 dwellings in the supply forecast for Years 1 and 2.26
54. Following the RTS on Housing Land Supply (HLS) there were a number of
concessions made in respect of the disputed sites which affects both the
Council and the Appellant’s position. The changes are reflected in updated
tables from the HLS SoCG.27
55. I have assessed the disputed sites in the context of the test of deliverability
set out in the Glossary to the NPPF. This specific guidance indicates which
sites should be included within the five-year supply. The first list (Part A) is
those sites where it is for the Appellant to provide evidence that sites will not
deliver within five years while the second list Part (B) consisting of sites with
outline planning permission for major development, allocated in a
development plan, has a grant of permission in principle, or is identified on a
brownfield register cannot be included within the five-year supply unless the
Local Planning Authority can produce clear evidence that housing completions
will begin on site within five years.
56. I have also had regard to the updated PPG advice published on 22 July 2019
on `Housing supply and delivery’ including the section that provides guidance
on `What constitutes a `deliverable’ housing site in the context of plan-
making and decision-taking.’ The PPG is clear on what is required:
“In order to demonstrate 5 years’ worth of deliverable housing sites,
robust, up to date evidence needs to be available to support the
preparation of strategic policies and planning decisions.”
This indicates the expectation that `clear evidence’ must be something
cogent, as opposed to simply mere assertions. There must be strong evidence
that a given site will in reality deliver housing in the timescale and in the
numbers contended by the party concerned.
57. Clear evidence requires more than just being informed by landowners, agents
or developers that sites will come forward, rather, that a realistic assessment
of the factors concerning the delivery has been considered. This means not
only are the planning matters that need to be considered but also the
technical, legal and commercial/financial aspects of delivery assessed.
23 Doc 38
24 Doc 31
25 Table 3 Doc 38
26 Table 4 Doc 38
27 Doc APP10
Securing an email or completed pro-forma from a developer or agent does not
in itself constitute `clear evidence’. Developers are financially incentivised to
reduce competition (supply) and this can be achieved by optimistically
forecasting delivery of housing from their own site and consequentially
remove the need for other sites to come forward.
58. Turning to the sites in dispute, there was a narrowing of issues following the
RTS but there remain 19 sites in dispute. The difference in deliverable supply
between the parties for the supply sites listed in Table 3 is 1,099 dwellings.28
Of the supply, the Council considers that in Year 1 (2019/20) 1,206 dwellings
and in Year 2 1,260 dwellings will be delivered. The Appellant contends that
figures of 1,206 and 1,145 are more realistic and robust. This is a difference
of 115 dwellings and Table 4 lists the sites where the Appellant disputes the
Council’s supply for Years 1 and 2 of the five-year period.29
59. Of these 19 sites, one site (IL Ref. 1)30 falls within Part A where the burden of
proof is put on the Appellant to demonstrate that the site will not deliver in
line with the Council’s forecast i.e. to provide clear evidence. From the
evidence there are a number of uncertainties including whether the site has
been sold and when a reserved matters application will be worked up,
submitted and determined. There is nothing to indicate a start date on site
and no indication of build out rates. I consider that Year 3 for first completions
is more realistic and a nationally identified built out rate of 43dpa would be
more appropriate. A minimum of 61 dwellings should be deducted.
60. The remaining 18 sites in dispute are Part B sites where the burden of proof is
put on the Local Planning Authority to provide clear evidence to justify
inclusion of sites within the forecast supply. Of these sites, one site (IL Ref.
14),31 which the Council’s commentary refers to as being controlled by Linden
Homes and based on information provided first completions are expected in
2020. However, the email from Linden Homes that the Council rely on
suggests uncertainty around delivery and does not provide clear evidence of
the site’s deliverability for the five-year supply. The developer has provided a
profile of delivery but there appears to be no interrogation of this. It is my
understanding that the land is under option and price negotiations have yet to
start with the landowner. The nature of these can be lengthy and far from
straightforward. It is therefore unknown when development would come
forward and the lack of clear evidence should remove this site from the supply
reducing the supply by 170 dwellings.
61. In another Part B site (IL Ref. 15),32 the Council’s evidence states that the
agents for the site have indicated that a detailed application is likely in the
near future. There is some uncertainty about progress on this application.
However, as I saw on my visit, there are significant issues associated with this
site not least ground conditions, demolition of a complex industrial heritage
and viability. There are also suggestions that the site is to be sold and that it
may become part of a wider redevelopment scheme. None of this information
provides clear evidence for inclusion of the site within the five year supply and
therefore 105 dwellings should be removed from the supply.
28 APP10 pages 1-2
29 APP10 page 3
30 Larkbear Strategic Extension, Barnstaple
31 South of Clovelly Road, Bideford
32 The Former Creamery Site, Great Torrington
62. There is a major strategic Part B site (IL Ref.16)33 listed which requires
Government infrastructure funding to enable delivery. I accept that funding is
forthcoming in the form of a Funding Agreement34 but there is no information
about when the funding will be available, what needs to be done to secure it,
what the timeframe is for delivery of the infrastructure and how this plays out
for housing delivery. Without clear evidence the site should not be included
and therefore 150 dwellings should be removed from the supply.
63. There are many other Part B sites which the Council considers will contribute
significant numbers of dwellings in the five year period. I note that with
regard to site IL Ref. 2635, the Council’s commentary refers to the site being
under the control of a regional house builder and that it intends to submit an
application in 2020. This would suggest that the site is progressing. However,
the site has yet to be sold and it is not known whether negotiations over price
have commenced. Without this being resolved it undermines the clear
evidence required to include the site within the overall supply and therefore
70 units should be removed.
64. Similarly, on site IL Ref. 3336 I note that no planning applications have yet
been submitted. Discussions with the developer are said to be on-going but
there is no clear evidence of the issues, what needs to be resolved or whether
there are any landownership issues that need to be overcome. On such a
large strategic site greater justification is required before including dwellings
within the supply. I consider that 128 dwellings should be removed from the
supply. With regard to IL Ref. 54,37 there is no planning permission and the
site is subject to a s106 Agreement. I consider that there is a lack of clear
evidence to justify inclusion of this site and therefore a further 174 dwellings
should be removed from the Council’s supply.
65. It is not necessary for me to go through all of the sites in Table 3 and Table 4
of APP10. In my view, the Council was not able to provide clear evidence of
delivery on most of the disputed sites which significantly undermines its
position. Although the Council published on 19 November 2019 a Housing
Land Supply Statement for the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2024 what is
evident is that the evidence that underpins the report has been collected post-
base date with evidence collection from Autumn 2019. In my view any update
should be thorough and consistent across all aspects of housing land supply
with evidence available and published at the base date.
66. Overall, I consider that the Appellant’s assessment of supply is more realistic
taking into account the test of deliverability set out in the Glossary to the
NPPF and the updated PPG advice published on 22 July 2019. I am satisfied
that the Appellant’s approach is consistent with national policy, case law,
appeal decisions and informed by research into current housebuilder sales
rates, assessment of the technical complexities of delivering development
sites and experience of the housebuilding industry including lead-in times.38
67. My conclusion on housing land supply is that there are a number of sites that
together significantly reduce the Council’s five-year housing land supply. A
33 Ilfracombe Southern Extension
34 LPA10
35 Kingsley Plastics Ltd, Western Barn Road, Winkleigh
36 Land at Adjavin Farm, Bideford
37 Land north of Clovelly Road, Bideford
38 See Appendix 14 and Appendix 15 of Mr Jacobs’ evidence
large number of the sites that TDC includes within the supply cannot be
justified applying the current definition of deliverable. I consider that TDC’s
supply should be reduced to reflect the Appellant’s position set out in Table 3,
Table 4 and Table 5 of APP10. It follows that the Council’s supply figure of
6,145 dwellings in APP10 should be reduced by 1,099 to give a more robust
total supply figure of 5,046 dwellings for the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March
2024. The Council maintains there is a 5.88 years supply using Liverpool and
a 5% buffer; 5.15 years using Liverpool and a 20% buffer. Using the Liverpool
approach with the 20% buffer, which I consider an integral part of the
development plan, produces a housing land supply equivalent to 4.23 years.39
68. It is accepted by both main parties in the General SoCG40 under item 9 that
Policy ST21 (1) is triggered on the basis of the monitoring year 2018/19.
Specific action is thus required in accordance with the policy but there are no
proposals to implement the necessary remedial measures. With regard to
Policy ST21 (2) this test is also failed. As Mr Jacob’s evidence demonstrates,
completions for the monitoring year 2018/19 fall below the 90% threshold
based on the NDTLP paragraph 4.24 approach and his assessment of
completions against requirements for the two subsequent years 2019/20 and
2020/21 also fall below the 100% average.41 The principle of development
plan support for residential development outside of defined settlement limits
is established subject to four criteria. Policy ST21 (2) is engaged in this case.
69. The Council gave evidence that even if it was engaged, the four criteria set
out within the policy were not met. However, the Council did accept in relation
to criterion (a) that the location was suitable as it was on the edge of a Main
Centre in a sustainable location. It also agreed that the proposal was
commensurate with the deficit in required housing. I note the proposal does
not need to be commensurate with the deficit as against the two years shown
in the monitoring report prepared for the purposes of Policy ST21. It simply
has to be “commensurate to the deficit in required housing”. The required
housing is the housing that is required in the district, and the deficit in the
housing required in the district is some 1,603 dwellings as at 31 March 2019.
70. With regard to criterion (b) delivery in a timely manner – if planning
permission is granted the appeal site would have outline planning permission
and a signed s106 Agreement. There is a contractual obligation to market the
site as soon as possible. There are no impediments to the delivery of housing
on the site as soon as the site is sold to a housebuilder. The agent’s letter42
establishes that the volume housebuilders would be interested in a site of this
size. There is nothing different about this site as regards delivery compared to
any other site that would need to be released if Policy ST21(2) is engaged.
71. With regard to criterion (c) I consider the proposal would be broadly
consistent with and not prejudicial to the overall spatial vision and strategy for
northern Devon along with the settlement vision and development strategy.
There is no need for me to repeat my assessment of the site in relation to
Policy ST08 and Policy GTT which is set out above. On the basis that Policy
ST21(2) is engaged and there is an express need to release housing sites
outside of settlement limits to make up a deficit in supply, I consider that
39 App10 page 5 Summary Table of 5 Year Housing Land Supply Position
40 Doc 37
41 APP10 Updated Table 8 page 7
42 APP1
release of a site adjoining the settlement boundary of a Main Centre in what is
conceded by the Council to be a sustainable location, would be appropriate.
72. With regard to criterion (d) subject to my assessment under the third and
fourth issues below, I consider that there is no breach of other development
plan policies. I note that paragraph 7.65 of the NDTLP indicates that if the
circumstances set out in Policy ST21 (2) are triggered
`It is expected that such sites will be developable or potentially developable
Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) sites and will
normally adjoin development boundaries or the principal built form for
defined settlements without development boundaries.’
The SHLAA concluded that not only was this site developable, but that it was
also suitable in all respects. This is precisely the type of site that should be
released if Policy S21(2) is engaged.
73. I conclude on the second issue that the Council cannot demonstrate a five
year supply of deliverable housing sites and that paragraph 11 (d) of the NPPF
is engaged.
Third Issue - The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance
of the surrounding landscape particularly in relation to the central and
western fields of the development.
74. The landscape planning policies that are alleged to have been breached are
set out in the Officer’s Report to Committee43 and the Council’s Statement of
Case.44 These are agreed in the LSoCG45 at paragraph 1 f) and g) and there is
no need for me to repeat them here. I held a Landscape RTS on 28 January
2020 when the landscape witnesses for both main parties discussed the
landscape and visual effects which are clearly set out in the comparison tables
that they produced. I have considered the LVIA,46 the Addendum to the LVIA47
together with the plans and photographic viewpoints submitted by the parties.
75. From the RTS discussion and from the evidence that is before me, it is clear
that the appeal site is not a valued landscape, and neither does it lie within or
adjacent to any locally or nationally designated landscape. It has an ordinary
condition typical of mixed Devon farmland, adjacent to existing residential
development. The landscape character of the area in which the appeal site sits
is one of arable and pastoral fields bordering the urban edge of a small town.
Hedge banks border the majority of the appeal site, with some exceptions.
The appeal site is not part of or adjacent to a conservation area. It is of
medium value in landscape terms and given that what is currently a greenfield
site would become a residential estate it is inevitable that within the confines
of the site itself the impact is assessed as major adverse.
76. I accept that there would be a change from farmland to a residential area,
which would change the perception of the area. The Council refers to a
suburbanising effect on the landscape. However, no hedgerows or trees would
be lost. The only landscape feature of note proposed to be lost would be hedge
banks, but substantially more hedge bank is proposed. The proposed road
43 Doc 14
44 Doc 34
45 Doc 39
46 Doc A13
47 Doc A11
layout would remove about 130m length of hedge bank and gap up about 5m
of the existing boundary (a field gate). The remainder would be retained. The
southern boundary of the central field, currently a post and wire fence would
be replaced with 205m of hedge bank, which would be tied into retained
hedge banks at the Caddywood Lane and Burwood Lane ends. With mitigation
the adverse impact would reduce to moderate.
77. Mr Randall’s assessment that the County Landscape Area (LCA) and District
Landscape Type (LCT) have high sensitivity, simply cannot be right because he
accepts that the appeal site is medium sensitivity and it sits within these
larger character areas and is representative of them. The surrounding area is
not designated, and Mr Randall’s reference to the former AGLV designation is
not of assistance because as the Council itself has confirmed it is no longer
used. In any event the area upon which Mr Randall focuses was never part of
the AGLV designation.
78. One of the two key inputs in the assessment of sensitivity of the landscape
receptors is to ask how susceptible the area is to the development proposed,
and Mr Randall has wrongly concluded that the surrounding landscape has
high susceptibility. They are much larger areas and are less susceptible to the
proposed development than the appeal site, not more. Neither can the impact
on these surrounding areas be of medium sensitivity, as Mr Randall claims.
There would be no impact on these areas because no development is proposed
on them. Extending the south-eastern edge of the town by between 100m and
200m, which once developed would read as part of the town, cannot possibly
have a high impact on the very large landscape areas surrounding the town.
79. Turning to the visual assessment of the appeal site, at my site visit I saw that
visually it is extremely well contained. Mr Randall confirms that the medium
range views extend to only 250m from the site and his long range views
extend to no more than 1.5kms from the site.48 In this regard he states that
`Within the built-up area, ground level views are confined to a few relatively
elevated sections of road that are oriented towards the site. Within the
countryside, views are constrained by landform, roadside hedge banks and
countryside. There are very few opportunities for views towards the site from
the majority of the built-up area, including historic town centre, or from the
wooded sections of the Torridge Valley and its tributaries. I agree.49
80. Moreover, Mr Randall also concludes that the significance of effect for all the
long range views and many of his medium range views is (at worst) none to
moderate.50 He states that `The significance of the effects falls away to
moderate and below in medium-range views, particularly views from within
the built-up area in which a perception of the surrounding countryside
remains. In longer range views, the effects generally become minor, since the
development - whilst visible - would not represent a fundamental change to
the character of the view’.51
81. Overall, I consider that the proposed development would have very little
landscape and visual impact. It is noteworthy that the Council has allocated
sites adjacent to the urban edge of the town in the NDTLP for residential
48 Mr Randall’s proof of evidence Table on page 21
49 Mr Randall’s proof of evidence page 20 paragraph 4.7
50 Mr Randall’s proof of evidence Table on page 31
51 Mr Randall’s proof of evidence page 33 paragraph 6.10
development, including the eastern field (Phase 1) of the appeal site. By
allocating these greenfield sites, the Council has demonstrated that there
would be no breach of Policy ST14 i.e. that the development of these sites
would conserve and enhance local distinctiveness, including tranquillity.
Moreover, the proposed development for the central and western fields
(Phases 2 and 3) is of similar layout, density and overall design principles to
that which was permitted on the eastern field (Phase1). As with Phase 1, there
would be no breach of Policy DM04 or DM08A.
82. With regard to policies in the GTNP, the proposed development demonstrates
sensitivity to the distinctive landscape character. Where important landscape
elements would be lost e.g. sections of hedge bank, these would be replaced,
and new lengths of hedge bank created as part of the mitigation. This is in
line with the mitigation hierarchy, set out in the Examiner’s proposed changes
to the submitted Policy ENV1. With regard to Policy ENV3, the proposed
development would provide new green infrastructure, which would benefit the
existing and the new communities. In terms of Policy ENV4, the proposed
development lies adjacent to the urban edge of Great Torrington. It would
extend the light sources into the fields immediately to the south of the town.
However, with the type and extent of the landscaping proposed,52 as well as
an agreed lighting strategy, the light spill would be minimised. I find no
conflict with the emerging GTNP policies.
83. I note the comments in the SHLAA,53 under the headings of compatibility,
landscape and light pollution, all of which are written by the Council itself and
run directly to the Council’s case that development of the appeal site would
breach the landscape policies of the NDTLP. The SHLAA evidence
demonstrates that the proposal would not breach any of those policies.
84. Drawing these threads together, I accept that as with most development of
greenfield sites there would be adverse visual impacts in views either from
within the site itself, or from some viewpoints immediately outside the site
looking in. However, with mitigation, the proposed development on Phases 1
and 2 would not have a significant adverse effect on the existing landscape
and visual resources. Similarly, the development of Phase 3 would not cause
unacceptable landscape or visual harm, whether taken individually or together
with Phases 1 and 2. The proposed development would comply with the
relevant NDTLP policies listed in the RfR1, other relevant NDTLP policies
referred to in evidence to the Inquiry and the relevant GTNP policies identified
in the LSoG.54 The proposal would also accord with paragraphs 8c, 122, 127
and 170 of the NPPF. Overall, I consider that, in landscape and visual terms,
the proposal is acceptable. On the third issue, I conclude, there is no reason to
withhold permission.
Fourth Issue - Whether the proposal makes adequate provision for
affordable housing and for any additional infrastructure/services, such as
education, drainage, transport and public open space arising from the
development.
85. At the Inquiry, a s106 Planning Obligation was submitted by way of
Agreement. The Planning Obligation is made by an Agreement between the
52 This would be agreed with the TDC at the detailed design/reserved matters stage
53 Doc 10
54 Doc 39 paragraph 1 f) and 1 g)
Landowners, the Appellant, TDC and DCC.55 A CIL Compliance Schedule was
submitted for the Planning Obligation.56 I have considered the Planning
Obligation in the light of the CIL Regulations 2010, as amended, the advice in
the NPPF and the PPG.
86. Local Planning Authorities should only consider whether otherwise
unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of
conditions or planning obligations.57 Planning obligations may only constitute
a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are
necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Regulation
122 of the CIL Regulations, as amended by the 2011 and 2019 Regulations,
and paragraph 56 of the NPPF make clear that Planning Obligations should
only be sought where they meet all of the following three tests:
• necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms
• directly related to the development; and
• fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
87. Paragraph: 004 of the PPG58 states that policies for planning obligations
should be set out in plans and examined in public. It states that it is not
appropriate for plan-makers to set out new formulaic approaches to planning
obligations in supplementary planning documents or supporting evidence base
documents, as these would not be subject to examination. Paragraphs 007
and 008 of the PPG concern funding for education and refer to the DfE
guidance for local education authorities on developer contributions.59
88. NDTLP Policy ST18 (Affordable Housing on Development Sites) sets out the
basis on which the Council will require affordable housing on residential
development proposals. Policy ST23 (Infrastructure) requires development to
provide, or contribute towards the timely provision of physical, social and
green infrastructure made necessary by the specific and/or cumulative impact
of those developments. Policy DM10 (Green Infrastructure Provision) sets out
the requirements for development to meet the green infrastructure typology,
quantitative and accessibility standards as set out in Table 13.1 to meet the
needs of intended occupants. The Green Infrastructure Strategy for North
Devon and Torridge District Councils60 provides the basis for the standards set
out in the NDTLP with the supporting text at paragraph 13.68 indicating that
regard should be had to the Strategy for a comprehensive interpretation of
the overall approach towards green infrastructure provision.
89. The Planning Obligation secures the provision of 30% affordable housing on-
site, with an agreed tenure split, in accordance with NDTLP Policy ST18(7), for
75% to be provided at a social rent level and 25% at intermediate level. The
provision of affordable housing on-site is necessary to meet an identified need
and is a requirement of both national and local planning policy. The provision
is directly related to the development and the provision of 30% is fairly and
reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. The actual numbers
of affordable units would depend on the final approved number of dwellings.
55 LPA2
56 LPA1
57 NPPF paragraph 54
58 Reference ID: 23b-004-20190901
59 Reference ID: 23b-007-20190315 and Reference ID: 23b-008-20190315
60 Part 2 of 3; David Wilson Partnership/JPC Strategic Planning & Leisure, April 2014
90. The Planning Obligation would also secure green infrastructure provision on
site pursuant to NDTLP Policy DM10 (incorporating Table 13.1) and provision
for an off-site financial contribution of £18,718.61 towards Great Torrington
Artificial Turf Pitch (ATP) in lieu of on-site provision towards youth play space.
The provision of appropriate levels of green infrastructure is essential in the
context of national and local policy. Policy DM10 and Table 13.1 provide a
robust basis for establishing the green infrastructure required for the detailed
design stage. The proposal would generate an estimated resident population
of some 423 persons and Table 13.1 requires the proposal to provide 0.2 has
of Play Space (youth) per thousand population resulting in a requirement of
84.73m2 of provision for the development. Whilst the NDTLP generally expects
green infrastructure requirements for major developments to be provided on
site, it recognises that financial contributions may be supported for off-site
provision.61 I consider this provision would be fairly and reasonably related in
scale and kind to the development.
91. The public transport contribution of £200,000 is necessary towards improving
bus services serving Great Torrington. The appeal site is at the edge of Great
Torrington and although walking and cycling as well as driving is possible to
the town centre, trips would be made to Barnstaple and Bideford, so
enhancements are necessary to public bus services. Policy ST23 of the NDTLP
indicates that developments will be expected to provide or contribute towards
the timely provision of infrastructure. The proposed service improvements
would operate Monday to Friday with an estimated cost of £120 per day and
total cost of £30,000 (5 days x 50 weeks excluding public holidays) per year.
Additionally, a Sunday/Public Holiday service is proposed at a cost of £350 per
day, or about £20,000 per year. The contribution would support these service
enhancements for a 4-year period. I consider the provision would be fairly and
reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
92. Outline planning permission for a 50 space car park and associated access
road immediately to the west of the appeal site was granted in June 2018.62
The construction of the car park is necessary. It forms part of the transport
strategy to mitigate the impact of the proposal in relation to the additional
traffic generated by the development and issues associated with activity
outside Great Torrington Bluecoat Church of England Primary School in the
morning and afternoon drop off/pick up periods. The provision of a 50-space
car park would remove a significant proportion of vehicles from the street and
remove any conflict arising from the development.
93. The Transport Assessment63 indicates that there are around 50 vehicles
typically parked on roads near to the school associated with dropping off and
picking up pupils; this conclusion has been confirmed by the Local Highway
Authority. The provision of a 50-space car park would therefore remove any
additional impact from the development and would accord with NDTLP Policies
ST23, DM05 and DMO6. I consider the provision of a 50 space car park would
be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
94. The Planning Obligation secures contributions for the provision of nursery,
primary and secondary education. The contributions requested by DCC are
necessary to make the appeal development acceptable in planning terms and
61 Doc 1 page 425 paragraph 13.70
62 Reference: 1/0702/2017/OUT
63 Doc A16 paragraph 6.3.5
directly related to the development. An Early Years Education Contribution of
£250 Index Linked per qualifying dwelling is required towards early years (2,
3 and 4 year olds) provision within Great Torrington. The new housing would
add to existing demand through population growth which is confirmed by the
provision for a new primary school in Policy GTT03 of the NDTLP.
95. A Primary Education Contribution of £3,336.55 Index Linked per qualifying
dwelling is required towards the provision of new primary school places within
Great Torrington. The new housing would add to existing demand through
population growth which is confirmed by the provision for a new primary
school in Policy GTT03 of the NDTLP. DCC has identified that the proposed
181 family type dwellings would generate an additional 45.25 primary pupils.
96. The designated primary school for this development is Great Torrington
Bluecoat Church of England Primary School which has a current net capacity
of 525. When factoring in approved but not yet implemented developments in
the area the Local Education Authority (LEA) has forecasted that in Spring
2023 the number of pupils expected to be attending the school is 517.45. This
shows that there is capacity for 7.55 pupils and therefore a contribution
towards the remaining 37.70 pupils would be required towards new primary
education provision in the area. This contribution would relate directly to
providing education facilities for those living in the development. In addition,
as a new primary school is required, the LEA would also need to request a
proportionate land contribution of 10sqm per family-type dwelling.
97. As contributions towards a new school are being requested in the area, all
early years’ requests would be towards early years provision at the proposed
new school. The contribution is based on the cost of provision arising from the
development on a per dwelling basis and the numbers of pupils per dwelling
and accords with guidance set out in DfE `Securing Developer Contributions
for Education’ November 2019; DCC ‘Education Section 106 infrastructure
Approach’ October 2016 and NDTLP Policies ST23: Infrastructure and GTT03:
Hatchmoor Common Lane. The contribution is fair and reasonable as it is
based on the cost of provision arising from the development on a per dwelling
basis and the numbers of pupils per dwelling.
98. A Secondary Education Contribution of £3,288 Index Linked per qualifying
dwelling is required towards provision of additional infrastructure at Great
Torrington School. The new housing would add to existing demand through
population growth. DCC has identified that the proposed 181 family type
dwellings would generate an additional 27.15 secondary pupils, and this would
have a direct impact on Great Torrington School. The net capacity for Great
Torrington School is 900, when factoring in approved but not yet implemented
planning approvals the forecast for Spring 2025 is 971 pupils, showing a
shortfall of 71 secondary pupils in the area. An expansion of Great Torrington
School to meet the increased population would therefore be required and the
contribution request would facilitate this directly. The contribution is based on
the cost of provision arising from the development on a per dwelling basis and
the numbers of pupils per dwelling. It accords with aforementioned guidance.
99. In my view, all of the obligations in the Planning Obligation are necessary to
make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the
development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the
development. Therefore, they all meet the tests within Regulation 122 of the
CIL Regulations and should be taken into account in the decision. On the
fourth issue, I conclude, there is no reason to withhold permission.
Other Matters
100. I have taken into account all other matters raised including the concerns
raised by Great Torrington Town Council, the representations made by
interested persons including those who gave evidence at the Inquiry and
those who provided written submissions. I have already dealt with many of
the points raised in the main issues.
101. A number of concerns related to highway safety matters and traffic impact. I
note that the proposal was supported by a Transport Assessment (TA) and
Travel Plan which complements the TA. The TA confirms that suitable
vehicular site accesses can be provided on to Hoopers Way and Caddywell
Lane and that the design of the site would be in accordance with the principles
of Manual for Streets. The location of the proposed development is accessible
for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users and would integrate well
with the surrounding residential area. The level of traffic generated by the
proposed development would not have a material impact on the local road
network or on the capacity at nearby junctions.
102. The ability for the new dedicated school car park to come forward as a result
of the residential development would also be a benefit to the development
proposals as it would alleviate congestion around the primary school at the
start and end of the school day which in turn would improve road safety for
pupils. The development would not have an impact on the road safety
conditions on the wider road network. Locally improvements to footway
provision on Caddywell Lane and the realignment of Tylers Meadow would
improve existing road safety in the vicinity of the site and nearby primary
school. The development could also remove on street parking around the
school crossing points.
103. There is no objection to the proposal from DCC the Highway Authority but
given the level of interest in the matter a statement has been prepared by the
transport consultants advising the Appellant which is included in the evidence
before the Inquiry.64 The statement responds to the issues raised by third
parties on this topic and sets them in the context of a summary of matters
such as the site access, traffic impact and the general accessibility of the site.
The statement demonstrates that there are no additional considerations
identified by third parties under this heading that weigh against the proposal.
104. The concerns about drainage relate to both foul and surface water drainage.
In relation to the former, South West Water have no objection to the
proposal. As far as surface water drainage is concerned, RfR3 refers to an
alleged lack of information on this topic. Further discussions have since taken
place between the Appellant’s drainage consultant and the Lead Local Flood
Authority and additional information has now been provided. A conditional
approach is now proposed whereby a detailed drainage scheme would be
prepared and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval and
implemented before any dwellings are occupied. It was agreed at the Inquiry
that RfR3 is no longer in dispute between the main parties and that the
matter can be dealt with via appropriate planning conditions. I agree.
64 See Appendix A to Mr Simkins’ proof of evidence
105. As with many proposals for new housing, interested persons have expressed
concerns about the pressure on various services and facilities such as
education facilities and green infrastructure. The Planning Obligation that has
been completed and signed between the Landowners/Appellant, TDC and DCC
in relation to the appeal addresses all the legitimate requirements in this
regard arising from the proposal that have been identified including education,
transport and recreation provision. I have dealt with the Planning Obligation
and how it would mitigate the impact of the proposed development in relation
to specific projects in the preceding section.
106. In terms of landscape and environmental impact some of the concerns raised
are similar to matters which I have already dealt with under the third main
issue. The proposed residential development would not result in a detrimental
impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would not
require the stopping up or diversion of any public rights of way. I recognise
that residential development would have some effects on residential visual
amenity. However, the effect on private views is not a planning matter, unless
they are unacceptable which these are not. In my view, the indicative plans
do show adequate separation distances between properties and potential for
further landscaping to soften boundaries.
107. Concerns have been expressed about the principle of development including
the site’s relationship with the defined development boundary for Great
Torrington and what is described in one response as ‘unplanned’ growth. I
have already dealt with the site’s suitability for residential development in the
first main issue and there is no need to repeat that assessment here.
Planning Balance
108. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires
that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with
the development plan, unless material planning considerations indicate
otherwise. The housing land supply position triggers the operation of Policy
ST21(2). The appeal proposal meets all the requirements of the policy in
terms of suitability of the site and its ability to meet the 2 and 5 year
shortfalls as well as the overall shortfall of completions over requirement.
109. The key development plan policies are ST01, ST06, ST07, ST08, ST21 and
GTT set in the context of the general, positive approach in the NDTLP. The
way these policies operate in this case effectively means that Policies ST06
and ST07 are overridden by Policy ST21 which specifically includes support for
sites such as the appeal site where the ST21(2) test is failed. These policies,
in combination, reflect the positive approach in the NDTLP towards sustainable
development, the principle of housing requirements as minimum levels to be
achieved and the importance of ensuring that at least those minimum levels
are met in a situation where, from the point of adoption, the NDTLP was
already well short of achieving them. In all the circumstances of this case I
find no conflict with any of the aforementioned policies including Policies ST08
and GTT which deal with self-containment. I conclude that the appeal
proposal accords with the development plan when read as a whole.
110. Paragraph 11c of the NPPF provides that proposals which accord with an up to
date development plan should be approved without delay. There is clear
evidence before me with regard to the suitability of the site, including in
relation to environmental considerations. The material considerations in this
case do not begin to outweigh the primacy of the development plan. To the
extent that there is some residual harm involved in relation to the
development of any ‘green field’ site which involves a change from
countryside to becoming part of a settlement, it does not change what is a
clear case for approving the appeal proposal in these circumstances.
111. Even if Policy ST21 (2) is not engaged then paragraph 11d) of the NPPF would
be engaged and the tilted balance would be in play because the Council
cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply as I have demonstrated
under the second main issue. There are no footnote 6 policies which would
provide a clear reason for refusing permission and which would prevent the
tilted balance from being applied. I do not consider that the most important
policies for determining the proposal are out-of-date in relation to the use of a
20% buffer. However, if it is determined that the buffer is indeed out of date
and thus so are the most important policies which I have identified based on
the Council’s approach in paragraph 2.17 of the November 2019 Position
Statement,65 then paragraph 11d) would also be engaged on this basis. If
paragraph 11 d) is engaged I consider that planning permission should be
granted because the adverse impacts of granting permission would not
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
112. There would be a number of benefits of the appeal scheme which are powerful
material considerations and they indicate taking a decision otherwise than in
accordance with the Plan. These benefits were not undermined to any degree
during the Inquiry. The following benefits would arise: (a) much needed
market housing and affordable housing; this is a very significant benefit of the
scheme where there is a shortfall in housing delivery; (b) significant economic
benefits from the housing scheme. Whilst I accept that any benefits arising
out of the construction phase would be temporary, the economic benefits
arising from the building of the houses and the spending power of residents
would be significant. It is estimated that this spending would be around
£4.75m in the local area each year; (c) the provision of the proposed car
parking for the Bluecoat School and associated footpaths would be a
significant benefit; this would address existing safety issues; (d) the
enhancement of existing bus services would be a significant benefit to both
residents and the wider community and (e) the contribution towards an all-
weather recreation facility would be a significant benefit which would also
provide a valuable additional facility available to the wider community.
113. The only harm that would need to be weighed in the balance against the
appeal scheme is the alleged harm in relation to landscape and visual effects.
Other concerns raised by interested persons have been dealt with and none of
the concerns raised amount to objections of any substance.
114. Therefore, even if I had accepted that the proposal is contrary to Policies
ST06, ST07, ST08 and GTT of the NDTLP and thereby reached a contrary
conclusion in terms of the appeal proposals accordance with the development
plan, then in the context of paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF, any harm which
might be identified as arising from the appeal proposals comes nowhere near
significantly and demonstrably outweighing the many and varied benefits of
65 Doc 31
the appeal proposals. There is no reason to withhold planning permission in
this case and I conclude that the appeal should be allowed
Planning Conditions
115. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council66 in the light of the
advice in paragraphs 54 and 55 of the NPPF and the Government’s PPG on the
use of planning conditions. I have made minor adjustments to the conditions
in the interests of clarity. Condition 1 is the standard time limit condition and
Condition 2 is necessary to determine the scope of the application and for the
avoidance of doubt. Condition 3 is required to ensure the development
provides an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures to contribute
to a mixed and balanced community and to reflect local needs. Condition 4 is
necessary to determine the scope of the application and for the avoidance of
doubt.
116. Condition 5 is necessary to enable the development to be delivered in
controlled phases as part of an overall phasing plan. I have added the words
“in writing” in the interests of clarity. Condition 6 is necessary to protect the
trees to be retained on the site from damage before and during the course of
development. Condition 7, which relates to a Construction Method Statement,
is necessary to minimise the impact of the works during construction of the
development in the interests of highway safety and the free flow of traffic and
to safeguard residential amenity. Condition 8, which relates to finished floor
levels, is necessary in the interests of amenity and to ensure a satisfactory
overall development. Condition 9 is necessary to minimise the amount of
waste produced and promote sustainable methods of waste management. I
have added the words “in writing” in the interests of clarity. Condition 10 is
required to safeguard heritage assets of archaeological interest.
117. Condition 11 is necessary to ensure the interests of protected species on the
site are maintained and to achieve biodiversity enhancement. Condition 12 is
necessary in the interests of highway safety and to ensure that adequate
information is available for the proper consideration of the detailed proposals.
I have added the words “in writing” in the interests of clarity. Condition 13 is
required to ensure the development does not cause increased flood risk or
increased pollution to the water environment. Condition 14 is necessary to
protect the amenities of neighbouring properties. Condition 15 is necessary to
ensure that adequate access and associated facilities are available for the
traffic attracted to the site. Condition 16 is necessary to control the number of
dwellings accessed from a single access point in the interests of the safe and
free flow of traffic. Condition 17 is necessary in the interests of public safety
and to prevent damage to the highway.
Conclusion.
118. Having considered these and all other matters raised I find nothing of
sufficient materiality to lead me to a different conclusion. The appeal is
therefore allowed subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.
Harold Stephens
INSPECTOR
66 LPA4
SCHEDULE OF PLANNING CONDITIONS
TIME LIMITS FOR COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
1) Application for the approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local
Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this
permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before
the expiration of three years from the date of this permission or before the
expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last reserved matters
to be approved whichever is the later.
DETAILS AND DRAWINGS SUBJECT TO WHICH THE PLANNING
PERMISSION IS GRANTED
2) For those matters not reserved for later approval, the development hereby
permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Site Location
plan ref AP01 and Access plans 2696.05 and 2696.14B and with regard to the
principles set out in the Design and Access Statement prepared by Inspire
Design dated January 2017.
PRE-COMMENCEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE CONDITIONS
3) Prior to commencement of the development, a proposed dwelling mix for the
development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The proposed dwelling mix shall be in broad accordance with Table
114 of the North Devon and Torridge Housing and Economic Needs
Assessment (2016), which requires the following: 1 bed – 5-10%; 2 bed – 30-
35%; 3 bed – 40-45%; 4 bed - 15-20%. Any deviation from this mix shall be
justified in accordance with Policy ST17(a). The reserved matters shall come
forward in accordance with the agreed mix.
4) Prior to the commencement of a phase or combination of phases of the
development details of the following matters for that phase or combination of
phases (in respect of which approval is expressly reserved) shall be submitted
to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority:
(a) the scale of the development;
(b) the layout of the development;
(c) the external appearance of the development;
(d) the landscaping of the site;
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
5) Prior to the commencement of the development a phasing plan for the whole
site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The phasing plan shall include the following:
(a) the intended number of market and affordable dwellings for each phase;
(b) the general locations and phasing of key infrastructure including, surface
water drainage, green infrastructure, and access for pedestrians, cyclists,
buses and vehicles;
(c) the timing and delivery of the road improvements and part closure of
Burwood Lane and Caddywell Lane; and
(d) the timing and delivery of the footway improvements.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the phasing plan.
6) Prior to the commencement of any development hereby granted planning
permission and before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought
onto the site for the purposes of the development hereby granted planning
permission, site specific details of the specification and position of the fencing
for the protection of any retained tree/group of trees, a tree constraints report
and plan in accordance with the recommendations in BS5837:2012, together
with a site specific arboricultural impact assessment and arboricultural
method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out as approved and the
fencing shall be erected prior to the commencement of any of the
development hereby permitted and shall be maintained until the development
has been completed and all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have
been removed from the site.
7) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a
Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Statement shall provide for:
• details of points of access of vehicles associated with the construction of
the site;
• the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;
• loading and unloading of plant and materials;
• storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;
• the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative
displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate;
• wheel washing facilities;
• measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction;
and
• a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and
construction works.
The Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to throughout the
construction period for the development.
8) Prior to commencement of each phase or combination of phases of the
development hereby permitted a plan identifying the finished floor level of the
proposed dwellings and the finished garden levels in relation to an identifiable
datum point shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with
such agreed details.
9) A waste audit statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of each phase or
combination of phases of the development. The development shall be carried
out in accordance with the approved statement.
10) No development shall take place on any phase or combination of phases until
the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of
archaeological work for that phase or combination of phases in accordance
with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) which has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be
carried out at all times in accordance with the approved scheme.
11) Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction and Ecological
Management Plan (CEMP) to detail measures to ensure habitat and species
protection during construction and a Landscape and Ecological Management
Plan (LEMP) to detail how retained and proposed habitats will be managed in
the long term based on the Ecological Assessment dated March 2019 prepared
by Ecology Solutions Ltd, will be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The development will be implemented in accordance
with the approved CEMP and LEMP.
12) Prior to the commencement of development on any phase or combination of
phases, details of any proposed estate road, cycleways, footways, footpaths,
verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service
routes, surface water outfall, road maintenance/vehicle overhang margins,
embankments, visibility splays, accesses, car parking and street furniture
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The phase or combination of phases shall be implemented in accordance with
the approved details.
13) No development hereby permitted shall commence on any phase or
combination of phases until the following information in relation to that phase
or those phases has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority:
(a) soakaway test results in accordance with BRE 365;
(b) measured ground water levels to demonstrate that throughout the year
the soakaway system would be in accordance with CIRIA SuDS Manual
C753;
(c) evidence that there is a low risk of infiltrated water from soakaways re-
emerging downslope from the site;
(d) a detailed drainage design based upon the approved Flood Risk
Assessment and Drainage Strategy by Clive Onions Ltd dated 4 March
2019 (Version 4), and the results of the information submitted in relation
to (a), (b) and (c) above;
(e) detailed proposals for the management of surface water and silt run-off
from the site during construction of the development hereby permitted;
and
(f) proposals for the adoption and maintenance of the permanent surface
water drainage system.
No building hereby permitted within each phase or combination of phases
shall be occupied until the works approved under (a) - (f) above have been
implemented for that specific phase or phases in accordance with the
approved details under (a) - (f).
14) Construction works shall not take place other than between 0700 and 1900hrs
on Mondays to Fridays, Saturdays between 0800 and 1300hrs and at no time
on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
PRE-OCCUPANCY CONDITIONS
15) The occupation of any dwelling in a phase or combination of phases shall not
take place until the following works have been completed:
(a) the spine road and any cul-de-sac carriageways serving the dwelling
(including any vehicle turning heads, kerbing and highway drainage)
constructed up to and including base course level, the ironwork set to
base course level and the sewers, manholes and service crossings
completed;
(b) the spine road and cul-de-sac footways and footpaths which provide that
dwelling with direct pedestrian routes to an existing highway
maintainable at public expense constructed up to and including base
course level;
(c) any cul-de-sac visibility splays have been laid out to their final level;
(d) the street lighting for the spine road, any cul-de-sac and footpaths
serving the dwelling has been erected and is operational;
(e) the car parking and vehicular access to serve the dwelling; and
(f) the verge and service margin and vehicle crossing on the road frontage
of the dwelling.
16) No more than eighty dwellings shall be occupied with access from Hoopers
Way until the spine road through the site links to Caddywell Lane and no more
than eighty dwellings shall be occupied with access from Caddywell Lane until
the spine road through the site links to Hoopers Way.
POST OCCUPANCY MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT
17) Provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so
that none drains on to any County Highway.
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
Peter Wadsley (of Counsel) Instructed by the Solicitor to TDC
He called
Peter Radmall MA BPhil CMLI Chartered Landscape Architect
Mike Muston BA (Hons) MPhil Director, Muston Planning
MRTPI
Helen Smith BA MTP MRTPI Development Manager Team Leader TDC
Beth Sachs MA (Hons) MRTPI Planning Policy Officer TDC
FOR THE APPELLANT
Satnam Choongh (of Counsel) Instructed by [APPELLANT]
He called
Corinna Demmar BA (Hons)
Dip LA (Hons) CMLI Senior Director (Landscape) RPS
Nigel Jacobs BA (Hons) MRTPI Operations Director, Intelligent Land
Christopher Simkins BA (Hons) Director, Planning and Strategy, RPS
MRTPI
Andrew Kenyon BEng FCHIT Director, Peter Evans Partnership
Clive Onions BSc, CEng, FICE, Director Clive Onions Ltd
FCIWEM, MIStructE, MCIHT
FOR DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL
Helen Montgomery MA (Hons) Flood and Coastal Risk Engineer
C.WEM, MCIWEM
FOR NORTH DEVON COUNCIL
Andrew Austen BA (Hons), Planning Policy Team Leader
MPhil, MRTPI
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY
INQ1 Notification Letter
INQ2 Letters of representations
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT
APP1 Letter to Ian Thomas at [APPELLANT] 10.01.2020
APP2 Email from DCC Landscape Officer re AGLV Supplementary Paper
29.11.2019
APP3 Email from Stephen Reed to Helen Smith 22.05.2019
APP4 Email exchange Helen Smith and Chris Simkins 09.12.2019
APP5 Extract from Northern Devon Housing and Employment Study 2014
APP6 Appeal and costs decision APP/G2815/W/19/3232099
APP7 North Devon & Torridge Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2016
APP8 Paul Newman New Homes Ltd v Secretary of State EWHC 2367 (Admin),
2019 WL 04259661
APP9 NPPG Planning Obligations para 004 extract
APP10 Housing Land Supply SoCG 30.01.2020
APP11 Closing Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE LPA
LPA1 CIL Compliance Schedule 13.2.2020
LPA2 s.106 Agreement 13.2.2020
LPA3 Proposed site visit and vehicular route
LPA4 Draft Conditions (as revised) 31.01.2020
LPA5 North Devon and Torridge District Councils’ Core Strategy Issue and
Options November 2007
LPA6 Great Torrington Commons Management Plan 2019 -2024
LPA7 Numbers of dwelling completions in Torrington
LPA8 Homes for Sale in Barnstaple Devon – Tawcroft (Persimmon)
LPA9 Homes for Sale in Barnstaple Devon – Larkbear (Pickards)
LPA10 Homes England Funding Contract, Ilfracombe
LPA11 Babergh appeal re deliverability definition 2019 EWCA Civ 2200 Case No.
C1/2019/0140
LPA12 Beech Grove (Chichester Development)
LPA13 Daddon Hill Farm Northam (Linden)
LPA14 Email re Land west of Parklands, South Molton (SoCG site 18) 27.01.2020
LPA15 Email re Clovelly Road and Tadworthy Road, Northam (SoCG site 11 and
50) 28.01.2020
LPA16 Email re South Molton Strategic Western Extension (SoCG site 52)
17.12.2019
LPA17 DCC LLFA Drainage Statement 29.01.2020
LPA18 Torridge and North Devon Councils’ Housing and Economic Needs
Assessment Torridge and North Devon Councils May 2016
LPA19 Closing submissions on behalf of the Council
INTERESTED PERSONS’ DOCUMENTS
IP1 Statement by Alan G Crawley, Torridge Commons Conservator
IP2 Statement by Cheryl Cottle-Hunkin, District and Town Councillor for Great
Torrington
IP3 Statement by John Insull, Town Councillor
IP4 Statement by James Shuttleworth, Local Resident
IP5 Statement by Adrian Freeland, Local Resident
IP6 Statement by Jill Hewell, Local Resident