Planning for the Future was published in early March in response to the recent budget. It is a clear statement on the Government’s aspirations for reform of the planning system.

This article looks at some of the key messages on delivering more homes. The central message of the document is more homes are needed and barriers need to be removed to enable more people to get onto the housing ladder. The Government wants to put an end to children “being priced out and forced to move away” from the places they grew up in.

Here are a few key points about what this will mean.

• The planning process is seen as “complex, out-of-date and fails to deliver enough homes where they are needed”. The Government will publish a White Paper and further reform of the planning system is inevitable.
• There is a clear commitment to delivering 300,000 homes each year and this will see the Local Housing Need formula being reviewed. Interestingly, a “new approach” is intimated for “building within and near to urban areas”. What this will mean for planning is not clear, but it does show that it’s not just brownfield development, but also greenfield too.
• Requiring all LPAs to have an up-to-date Local Plan by December 2023. This is ambitious, especially given that Councils are struggling with preparing reviews of Local Plans and the uncertainty about the Local Housing Need formula.

These are very ambitious aspirations and it will be interesting to see how the Government brings this into practice. However looking beyond these locked-in and locked-down times, the future for housebuilding certainly looks bright.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/872091/Planning_for_the_Future.pdf

Local Planning Authorities, particularly in rural areas, often have a Replacement Dwelling Policy that states the new dwelling cannot be significantly larger than the existing one.

However, a recent appeal decision for a replacement dwelling in Wiltshire has demonstrated that, contrary to many Development Plan Policies on this subject, a dwelling can be demolished, and a significantly larger replacement can be erected in its place – even in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Not being allowed a larger replacement dwelling is something developers have struggled with in recent times. This is because such Replacement Dwelling Policies are often applied too literally and in so doing, they prevent the rejuvenation of the housing stock by discouraging the redevelopment of older dwellings that are often not fit for modern living, even when the visual impact of a larger dwelling would be low or even negligible.

Fortunately, one Planning Inspector has overturned a refusal of a replacement dwelling where the relevant policy had been applied too literally and failed to assess the proposal contextually on its own merits.

The site is question is located in the North Wessex Downs AONB and it related to a 3-bed thatched cottage with the first floor built within the roof space. The application proposed a ‘pseudo-Georgian’ manor house with two full storeys with the roof hidden behind a parapet.

The Inspector noted a ‘technical conflict’ with the Replacement Dwelling Policy because the new dwelling would be larger than the existing one. However, the Policy gave no clear justification for the requirement for replacement dwellings to remain a similar size to the ones they replace where there would be no demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The Inspector had previously concluded that the larger replacement dwelling would cause no visual harm compared with its predecessor. Consequently, they gave little weight to the Replacement Dwelling Policy and the appeal was allowed.

This reiterates that proposals for replacement dwellings should always be assessed in their context and the fact the replacement dwelling is larger than its predecessor can indeed be permitted, even when there is an extant Policy stating otherwise, providing the new dwelling is not visually harmful.

It also highlights that many Replacement Dwelling Policies should not be taken literally, which often deters developers from even entertaining the possibility of building a replacement dwelling.

If you are considering a replacement dwelling and would like to know the likelihood of obtaining planning permission, please feel free to get in contact with us.

Wiltshire Council have conceded through a Statement of Common Ground that they have between 4.42 and 4.62 years worth of housing supply. This equates to a shortfall between 1,234 to 809 dwellings.

This presents a significant opportunity for sites to be revisited as a means of helping the Council meet its housing requirements.

McLoughlin Planning has been heavily involved in monitoring the Housing Land Supply situation closely in Wiltshire, with a particular emphasis on the north and the west housing market area.

Over the past couple of years, the Council has successfully defended a number of Planning Appeals brought about by alleged deficiencies in 5-Year Housing Land Supply.

However, at a recent Appeal at Purton Road by Beechcroft Land, it became clear during the course of the Inquiry that the Council conceded, through a Statement of Common Ground with the Appellant, that it was unable to demonstrate a 5-Year Housing Land Supply when the requirement was compared against the provisions of the Standard Method.

The Statement of Common Ground stated that the Council had between 4.42 and 4.62 years’ worth of supply. This equated to a shortfall between 1,234 to 809 dwellings.

This is a significant concession in the Council’s Housing Land Supply position as it readily affirms that the presumption in favour of sustainable development under paragraph 14d of the NPPF can be engaged. This point was readily acknowledged in the Council’s closing submissions.

The implication of the above is significant. This is the first time McLoughlin Planning have seen a Local Plan challenged on the basis of being out of date when compared against the housing requirements of the Standard Method.

Furthermore, the admission that it does not have a 5-Year Housing Land Supply and that paragraph 14d of the Framework is engaged, presents a significant opportunity for sites to be revisited as a means of helping the Council meet its housing requirements.

Whilst the outcome of the Appeal is far from certain, the implications of this concession by the Council are nothing but significant for those with development interests in the County.

McLoughlin Planning are delighted to have secured planning permission for change of use from agricultural building to a farm shop for Todenham Manor Farm Shop.

Points of note from this application are the farm shop is to be ancillary to the main business on the premises, there cannot be separate A1 premises and the requirement for secure cycle parking to ensure adequate cycle facilities are provided to meet the requirement for sustainable development, in accordance with Cotswold District Local Plan Policy INF3.

This application poses interesting options to other farmers in Cotswold District, who may be looking for a means of diversifying and having a ready outlet for sales of their own produce.

January saw two Appeal decisions in Tewksbury Borough (at Fiddington and Minsterworth), regarding the issue of housing development and 5-year housing land supply. In both cases, the Council conceded that it did not have a 5-year housing land supply.

In light of this, whilst the outcome of the appeals perhaps are not surprising given the engagement of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, it is worthwhile looking at the Council’s actions and how this impacts development proposals elsewhere in the Borough.

In a previous article, we wrote about Paragraph 14 of the Framework and recent Appeal Decision in Richards Castle, Herefordshire, which looked into the role Neighbourhood Plans play in the determination of planning applications. In Tewkesbury’s case, it has a number of such plans which are in excess of 2 years old.

Regarding the two Appeal decisions above, the Council’s position was it could only demonstrate 4.3 year’s worth of supply. In both cases, the Inspectors’ noted the undersupply, but did not seek to interrogate the point further as to whether the supply figure was potentially lower than 3 years (as intimated in an Highnam Appeal case last year). By doing this, the Council is in effect shoring up the defence of areas in the Borough which have Neighbourhood Plans more than 2 years old.

Clearly the lack of 5-year housing land supply places the Council in a difficult position to resist speculative applications. However, in those cases where there is a Neighbourhood Plan in place that is more than 2 years old, the advantage still lies with Council.

Neighbourhood Plans and their role in the determination of planning applications has been a considerable issue in Planning for a number of years. Frequently, such plans come up against housing applications, where an LPA cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply.

Recent revisions to the NPPF, set out on how the presumption in favour of sustainable development (in paragraph 11) applies in instances where a Neighbourhood Plan is in place (paragraph 14). Helpfully, an appeal decision last year in Herefordshire (PINS Reference 3221760) provides further clarity on this relationship.

Essentially, where there is a Neighbourhood Plan in place and the proposal conflicts with the said plan, even if the presumption in favour is triggered (by way of lack of 5-year housing land supply, for example), the adverse impact arising from allowing that proposal will outweigh the presumption. This essentially directs the decision taker to refuse the application. However, paragraph 14 has four criteria, all of which must apply in order for the decision taker to refuse the application, these are summarised as:

• The Neighbourhood Plan has to be less than two years old at the point of determining the application.
• The Neighbourhood Plan contains allocation and policies to meet its identified housing requirement.
• The LPA has at least a three-year supply of housing
• The LPA’s housing delivery was at least 45% of that which was required over the previous three years.

Whilst this appeal was unsuccessful, the Inspector’s analysis of the paragraph 14 tests is very helpful in highlighting the fact that where a Neighbourhood Plan is more than 2 years old, conflict between the Plan and the proposed development would be insufficient to outweigh the benefits of the proposed development.

The deadline for the submission of representations on the Stroud Local Plan is rapidly approaching on the 22^nd January. We have highlighted this deadline in previous posts and in our Newsletter.

Following more detailed work on the Plan we would like to point out some of the key areas of concern.

Why does this matter?

The Plan is currently proposing housing number growth at a level that is consistent with that put forward in the Standard Method. Government guidance on the use of the Standard Method figure seeks to treat this as the minimum figure, rather than the target. In this time of the government being committed to fixing the broken housing market and based on our experience of Local Plan examinations elsewhere, doing the minimum required will cause problems.

The emerging plan does not allow for enough homes to be built.

What does this mean for a land owner or developer based in the Stroud District?

The Plan is heavily reliant on some large strategic allocations, several in very close proximity to each other. In future, the Council will have to present more robust evidence on the timings and deliverability of these allocations. Any slippage in the Plan’s adoption and/or submission and determination of these major applications will cause issues for the Council in maintaining a five year housing land supply. This will also compromise the delivery of much needed affordable housing.

The Council’s plan is ambitious in terms of some of the sites it is looking to bring forward. Our concern is that there is insufficient flexibility and lack of alternative options. This consultation presents an opportunity for land owners or developers to have their site considered, where otherwise it may have been overlooked.

We have extensive knowledge of the Stroud Local plan and can provide a free, no obligation review to assess your sites viability.

Call Nathan McLoughlin on 01242 895008 or email nathan.mcloughlin@mplanning.co.uk

McLoughlin Planning is delighted to be part of a team led by West Hart Partnership, assisting in the securing of planning permission for a new state-of-the-art medical centre for Stourport, on behalf of GB Partnerships.

Two current doctor’s surgeries will be merged into one. This new centre will feature 76 car parking spaces, electric car charging points and an on-site pharmacy and will care for 21,500 patients.

Our services related to providing the planning policy justification for the new Medical Centre, balancing the loss of Public Open Space and the partial location of the site in Flood Zone 2 with the compelling need for a new medical centre in the town. Our work drew heavily on previous experience of reviewing public open provision for the town and government guidance requiring the provision of essential infrastructure.

It is a positive result that will significantly improve the medical service provision for Stourport and the surrounding catchment area.

With the impending General Election, we’ve taken the opportunity to look at the main three parities proposals for the Planning System should they enter Government. Whilst much has been picked over about each Party’s intentions, we thought it better to take a much wider overview of Party attitudes to new housing development.

Looking at all three manifestos, the key point is that all parties are committed to solving the country’s housing crisis in one way or another.

Both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats propose building 300,000 new homes per year, with the Lib Dems proposing that 100,000 of that target are specifically for social rent. In contrast, Labour only highlight the aim to build up to 150,000 new social homes per year by the end of the next Parliament.

Both the Conservatives and Labour see the prioritisation of brownfield development and equally seek to protect the green belt. The Liberals remain silent on the matter, but it would be safe to assume that they would follow the other two.

There are of course other details, specific to each party, about infrastructure delivery, energy efficiency, design and putting the climate emergency at the heart of decision making.

The key point with our reading of the situation is that there is significant stability across all parties about the need for new house building. This should continue to see Development Plans being prepared in a positive way to meet housing needs (however they end up being calculated).

Therefore, despite the political posturing and irrespective of who you support, the fundamental message to the housebuilding industry is that we will still be building.

Stroud District Local Plan has now been published. In it the Council targets 12,800 new homes and an additional 14.4ha of employment land to be provided in the period to 2040.

The Plan represents a significant opportunity to promote land for development. This is not the final stage of consultation but the final draft Plan before the pre-submission consultation is held in the Autumn of 2020. By that time, the Council will have a definitive position on what it’s development strategy will be and what development allocations will come forward to deliver it.

There is consistency with the previous Council’s plan, they have continued to split the District into a series of Parish Clusters with housing and employment allocations and have a development strategy for each cluster. The Council uses a settlement hierarchy, that is based on the availability of services and facilities within each settlement.

The main towns of Stroud, Stonehouse, Cam and Dursley and the Gloucester Fringe are the principal focal points for growth followed by five other lower tier towns on the settlement hierarchy spread across the District

McLoughlin Planning have extensive experience in Stroud District. We are currently advising a number of landowners with interests in the District to actively consider promoting their land through the Local Plan process and would be happy to give a free intial review of any other parcels of land in the Stroud District.

Please contact Nathan.mcloughlin@mplanning.co.uk 01242 895008