The appeal decision delivered by Braintree District Council is part of the emerging trend towards local authorities refusing planning even where they cannot demonstrate adequate housing supply.
The Inspector in this case confirmed that the Council could not establish a five year housing supply and the plan was out of date. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) specifies – where policies are out of date – that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would outweigh the benefits. Despite this, the Inspector refused the planning appeal for 65 residential dwellings in Steeple Bumpstead.
The Inspector firstly considered heritage reasons. The dwellings were to be of a suburban design, would obstruct views of listed buildings and would create a ‘jarring’ contrast with the village surroundings. The Inspector noted that although there would be less than substantial harm to the preservation of heritage assets such as the church, the public benefits of the scheme would not outweigh that harm. This is a significant departure from the norm.
The Inspector also rejected the developer’s argument that the Heritage Policy was inconsistent with the NPPF because it did not contain a balancing exercise. This is also a move away from the status quo.
The Inspector considered the landscape. The Council argued that the policy was out of date because it sought to protect the countryside for its own sake. The Inspector acknowledged it did not reflect the exact policy wording but still gave the policy significant weight. The Inspector considered the area to be one of England’s finest landscapes and and stated that new housing should only be welcomed where it contributes to its natural beauty. The Inspector considered that Steeple Bumpstead was a valued landscape and development should therefore be restricted.
Access to facilities
Finally the inspector concluded there was inadequate accessibility to shops, facilities and services. Only ‘top-up’ shopping was available in the locality; there was no school transport and a car would be required for the majority of journeys.
Although this case stands out from most planning appeal cases, it follows that developers should approach sites with heritage and conservation connections with caution and have development plans that are sympathetic to the surroundings, even where a lack of housing supply is apparent.
Disclaimer: While we do all that is possible in terms of ensuring its accuracy, this blog contains general information only. Nothing in these pages constitutes legal advice. You need to consult a suitably qualified lawyer from the firm on any specific legal problem or matter.
More Property Development Articles
Anybody entrusted with selling property on the behalf of a lender can take comfort in the robust approach shown by the Court.
Barr Ellison acted in a successful application to modify a restrictive covenant for a developer which otherwise prevented their redevelopment of a site in Cambridge.
Restrictive covenants can be a headache for developers who have otherwise found the perfect piece of land on which to carry out their dream development.
It is always preferable for leases to contain express reservations to alter, build and erect scaffolding in favour of a landlord who might want to develop at some point in the future.
A Court of Appeal decision serves as a warning to developers of the dangers of proceeding with developments in breach of a restrictive covenant.
It is a strict requirement that a party needs to be in compliance with all conditions precedent before serving a notice to complete a property transaction.
Appellants would be well advised to take care when introducing new evidence to a planning appeal, ensuring that it is available in good time for public inspection, usually via the local authority’s website.
The Supreme Court held that the landlord’s intention to demolish or reconstruct must be independent of the tenant’s claim for a new tenancy and not conditional upon it.
Barr Ellison once again sponsored the Innovation of the Year category at this year’s Cambridge Property Awards.
A landmark case has clarified the scope of an action for nuisance based on the presence of Japanese knotweed.