The Stables, Chaigley Road, Longridge, PR3 3TQ · development) at The Stables, haigley Road, Longridge, PR3 3TQ. The Planning Statements purpose is to assess and conclude on the acceptability

The Stables, Chaigley Road, Longridge, PR3 3TQ

Outline planning application for up to 15 self-build dwellings.

PLANNING STATEMENT (INCLUDING DESIGN AND ACCESS, SUSTAINABILITY AND

UTILITIES STATEMENT)

November 2017

PWA_17-371

Planning Statement |The Stables, Chaigley Road, Longridge

Page | 1

Report Control

Document: Planning Statement: The Stables, Chaigley Road, Longridge Client: Mr Andrew Billington Job No.: 17_371 File storage: Z:\Client files\17-316 to 17-600\17-371 The Stables, Chaigley Road, Longridge\3.

Application Document Checking

Primary Author: Rachael Leather Initialled: RL

Contributor: Daniel Hughes Initialled: DH

Reviewer: Paul Walton Initialled: PW

Revision Status

Issue Date Status Checked for issue

1 28.09.2017 DRAFT DH

2 17.11.2017 FINAL PW

3

4


Page | 2

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PWA Planning is retained by the landowner, Mr Andrew Billington (‘the applicant’), to prepare and

submit an outline planning application for up to 15 no. self-build dwellings (‘the proposed

development’) at The Stables, Chaigley Road, Longridge, PR3 3TQ. The Planning Statement’s purpose

is to assess and conclude on the acceptability of the proposal in terms of relevant national and local

planning policy, along with any material considerations.

1.2 The planning application is made to Ribble Valley Borough Council as an outline planning application

with all matters reserved save for access, and relates to the red edge application site boundary

defined by the Location Plan and Existing Site Plan (drawing ref. 2959-010).

1.3 This Planning Statement, alongside a review of the site history and relevant policies at both a local

and national level, provides a description of the proposed development together with an appraisal of

the planning merits of the scheme. Moreover, this statement should be read in conjunction with the

following supporting documents:

• 1APP form;

• Drainage Strategy

• Drawn Information: -

o 1536-02 Landscape Masterplan

o 02959-010 Location and Existing site plan

o 2959-020B Indicative type plan

o 2959-030 Indicative site sections

o 2959-040A Indicative site plan

o 1536-01 Tree Survey

• Flood Risk Assessment;

• Heritage Statement;

• Landscape and Visual Assessment;

• Phase 1 Contamination Report;

• Phase 1 Ecology Report;

• Transport Statement;

• Tree Survey Report;

1.4 The remainder of this statement is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – Site Description;

• Section 3 – Planning History

• Section 4 – Proposed Development;


Page | 3

• Section 5 – Design and Access, Sustainability and Utilities Statement;

• Section 6 – Planning Policy Assessment;

• Section 7 – Conclusions.

1.5 It is contended within this planning submission that the proposals represent sustainable development

which is consistent with the policies of the adopted development plan and hence that planning

permission ought to be granted. In particular it will be demonstrated that :-

- There is considerable doubt as to whether the Council can continue to identify a five year housing

land supply as required by NPPF Paragraph 47. The most recent appeal decision on this matter

identified that the Council has a record of persistent under delivery of housing and that the supply

was reliant upon uncertain ‘windfall’ developments (see the Inspector’s conclusions at paragraph

20 of Appendix B);

- The Council is unable to demonstrate that the specific housing requirement for Longridge during

the lifetime of the Core Strategy will be met and hence that additional housing sites need to be

identified, in order to boost the supply of housing in Longridge and to enable the Council to

deliver its strategic priorities within the adopted Core Strategy.

- There remains an unresolved objection to the emerging HED DPD concerning the settlement

boundary of Longridge in the specific location of the application site and so it cannot be assumed

that the boundary of the settlement will remain unaltered, which is an important material

consideration in the determination of an application at the site (see Appendix A).

- In any event, the proposal remains compliant with the development plan, which indicates that

the housing requirement is a minimum figure and that proposals which have an emphasis on

promoting sustainable patterns of development will be supported.

- The scheme promotes self-build / custom-build housing, which represents a specific type of

housing which (i) represents a specific local need and (ii) is a type of development for which the

Council are statutorily obliged to make provision.

1.6 In summary, for reasons identified in this statement it is considered that the proposed development

is entirely appropriate and consistent with national and local planning policy. It will be demonstrated

that the scheme represents sustainable development and that outline planning permission ought to

be granted.


Page | 4

2 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 The application site, which extends to approximately 1ha in size, is located to the north west of Higher

Road, on the periphery of Longridge and currently comprises an area of land used for equestrian

purposes and including stable buildings, sand and grass paddocks. The remainder of the land is

undeveloped vacant land occasionally used to turn out horses.

2.2 A Location Plan showing the site within its immediate setting is submitted with this application

(drawing ref. 2959_010), whilst an aerial image of the site within its wider setting is illustrated in

Figure 1.

Figure 1: Aerial image showing the location of the site (not to scale)

2.3 The site adjoins the existing urban boundary of Longridge, with urban development to the south, east

and west, whilst to the north there is more open land. The site is bounded to the east by Higher Road,

with the Beacon Fell View Holiday Park beyond and to the south and west by John Smith’s Playing

Field with established residential dwellings beyond. The central parts of Longridge lie generally to the

south west.

2.4 Being located on the edge of Longridge, which is a compact town, but which has a broad range of

facilities, will mean that the proposed development will have easy access to local amenities, including

Berry Lane Doctors and Drakes Dentists located within 1 km of the site. Longridge Church of England

Primary School and Longridge High School are both located within 2 km of the site. Local


Page | 5

supermarkets are located less than 2 km from the site (Co-op and Booths) both located on Berry Lane,

and a convenience store located 0.4 km from site on Higher Road. As this site is located on the B5269,

the site has access to transport amenities, with the nearest bus stop located on Higher Road, 0.2 km

from the site. In summary, everyday facilities are within easy walking distance from the site, in

addition, more facilities and services are available elsewhere within Longridge, which can be accessed

via bus services at the bus stop adjacent to the site. It is contended within this Planning Statement

that the site is in part previously developed and that due to the relationship with surrounding urban

land uses, it appears to be functionally part of the settlement of Longridge. Indeed, in this respect

there remains an unresolved objection to the settlement boundary of Longridge proposed within the

emerging Housing Economic Development (HED) DPD, the details of which have been included within

Appendix A of this document.

2.5 Vehicular access is currently taken off Chaigley Road to the southern corner of the site which is to be

stopped up as part of the proposal. The proposed site access is to be taken directly from Higher Road

with an integrated spine road serving the new dwellings, to be inclusive of relevant improvement

works. The site is dissected by footpath 3-2-FP37, this however is retained by the Indicative site plan

utilising the proposed site access with no development to be built across it through the remainder of

the site.


Page | 6

3 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 A search of Ribble Valley Borough Council’s planning register has been carried out in order to

understand the site’s planning history. Whilst an outline application for the erection of a dwelling

(3/2016/0604) was refused in August 2015, there is no further planning history associated with the

site.

3.2 The application for the new dwelling including access (3/2016/0604) was refused for the following

reasons:

1. The proposal is considered contrary to Key Statements DS1, DS2 and Policies DMG2 and DMH3

of the Ribble Valley Core Strategy in that the approval would lead to the creation of a new

residential dwelling in the defined open countryside, located outside of a defined settlement

boundary, without sufficient justification which would cause harm to the development strategy

for the borough leading to the creation of an unsustainable pattern of development contrary to

the aims and objectives of the adopted Core Strategy and the NPPF presumption in favour of

sustainable development.

2. The proposed development would create a harmful precedent for the acceptance of other similar

proposals in the defined open countryside without sufficient justification, which cumulatively

would lead to the perpetuation of unsustainable patterns of development, outside the existing

defined settlement which would have an adverse impact on the implementation of the

Development Strategy as adopted within the Ribble Valley Core Strategy, contrary to the interests

of the proper planning of the area in accordance with the core principles and policies of the

National Planning Policy Framework.


Page | 7

4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

4.1 The application proposes to develop land to the west of Higher Road, Longridge with a development

of up to 15 no. self-build (SB) dwellings, including the provision of 30% affordable self-build (ASB)

units (4 on-site dwellings), and a new access road off Higher Road, which offers a safe, convenient

access route with good visibility splays. The application is submitted in outline with access, saving all

other matters for subsequent approval.

4.2 Access details are shown on the submitted indicative site plan (drawing ref. 2959-040A). The access

will comprise of a priority junction with Higher Road centrally located at the frontage of the site. A

short length of spine road is illustrated on the site plan, showing how access can be provided for up

to 15 dwellings. The spine road splits into two routes, with pedestrian footways serving the remainder

of the site. Other aspects shown on the Indicative site plan are for illustrative purposes only, but help

to demonstrate that the site can be developed in a manner consistent with the self-build concepts

and appropriate to the vernacular of Longridge. For further information on the background and

rationale for the indicative site layout and the likely type and scale of development please refer to

the Design and Access Statement (Section 5 of this statement) which is submitted in support of the

application. The existing right of way that runs through the site will remain in its current location,

incorporated into the site access, remaining unobstructed as it passes through the site.

4.3 As indicated, vehicular access to the site is proposed via Higher Road. In this respect, speed surveys

have been undertaken by DTPC Ltd and the results have informed the final access arrangements,

which represents a safe and convenient means of access and egress into the site.

4.4 Whilst landscape details are not submitted for approval as part of this outline application a Landscape

Masterplan (drawing ref. 1536-02) is submitted in support of this application which demonstrates the

applicant’s intention to provide a mix of native tree, hedgerow and shrub planting within the

development in order to create a visually attractive development. John Smiths playing field located

directly adjacent to the proposed development will provide an outdoor play space for children

together with integrated footpaths for walking. This will act as public open space for the site.

4.5 All detailed matters, such as the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, will be provided for as

part of any future reserved matters application, subsequent to the grant of outline planning consent

for the principle of the development and site access arrangements.


Page | 8

5 DESIGN AND ACCESS, SUSTAINABILITY AND UTILITIES STATEMENT

5.1 This section presents the Design and Access Statement (DAS) for the Proposed Development, it

explains the considerations taken into account during the design of the development and acts as an

explanation as to how the indicative site layout has been achieved and the decisions taken during its

evolution. It also provides details related to the required “Sustainability Statement” and “Utilities

Statement”.

The Design Process

Assessment / Design Constraints

5.2 During the design process, particular consideration has been given to the surrounding context. Whilst

only illustrative, the proposals reflect the plot ratios of properties within the area. Adequate parking

provision has been provided with a turning area available within the site.

Nature Conservation and Ecology

5.3 The site is not designated as having any wildlife / ecology value. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

has been undertaken. The results of which confirm that no negative impacts are anticipated as a

result of the Proposed Development.

Existing Trees

5.4 A Tree Survey has been submitted as part of the planning submission. This provides details of the

location of trees and vegetation, along with a schedule of their quality and species.

Evaluation

5.5 The access point, site dimensions and topography, as well as the requirements of the drainage

strategy combine to create an arrangement of the type shown on the indicative layout. The proposed

housing density of the development is relatively low, by comparison with typical residential densities

on sites developed by more traditional volume housebuilders. This is partly a result of the intention

to provide self-build units (which typically have more generous plots) and also to reflect the character

of the surrounding residential area and the fact that the site sits on the transition between urban and

rural area. Consideration of existing drainage of the site has been particularly pertinent in the

evolution of the illustrative layout, with a key being to minimise impact on the existing watercourse.

Design Proposals

Use

5.6 The proposal is for residential development.


Page | 9

Amount

5.7 The development consists of up to 15 self-build dwellings, 30% of the total dwellings will be made

available as affordable self-build dwellings. This type of development is not currently well provided

for within Ribble Valley and Longridge in particular.

Layout

5.8 The indicative layout incorporates 15 dwellings arranged along a central spine road, which itself is

designed to take advantage of the contours of the site. The indicative layout aims to identify that it is

possible to develop up to 15 self-build dwellings within the site, each with a generous plot and which

respects the landscape setting of the site, the varying levels across the site and the central

watercourse. To further demonstrate how the scheme might be assimilated into the wider landscape,

a Landscape Masterplan has been provided.

Scale and Massing

5.9 The indicative type plan (drawing ref. 2959-020) provides for a housing mix with properties ranging

from single storey to 2.5 storey. Although illustrative at this stage, it is considered that this provides

an appropriate mix of housing in terms of scale and heights.

Landscaping

5.10 A Tree Survey and Landscape Masterplan accompanies this application. The following provides

further details as to the landscape strategy for the Proposed Development.

Existing Landscape Context

5.11 With respect to the Landscape Masterplan, the landscape design is an integral part of the

development scheme to assimilate a high quality external environment. The design aims to contribute

to the character of the area, street scenes, planting and publicly accessible open spaces. The

character in relation to play and leisure will be achieved through providing well considered spaces

which frame views, provide seasonal colour and interest, act as gateway markers and focal points but

also create useable and simple spaces which are low maintenance.

5.12 In order to create a development which responds positively to its environment it is essential that the

site complements the existing local context and character. Therefore, a review of relevant planning

policy and desktop study of the development site has been undertaken. Section 5 provides further

details with respect to the schemes compliance with planning policy.


Page | 10

5.13 The immediate site context is to be maintained wherever possible. Existing trees around the site are

to be retained and the design takes account of this and has avoided these trees and their root

protection zone.

Landscape Strategy

5.14 The vision for the site is to create an approach which is welcoming and responds positively to the

local landscape context and character. To enhance ecological value and green networks through the

creation of shared formal and informal spaces within the development envelope. Promote views

through framing and orientation of planting to enhance on site features and ensure holistically that

the development is sensitive to the site’s wider open countryside setting and landscape backdrop

through soft boundary treatments that merge into the existing.

5.15 The strategy aims to ensure sufficient space is dedicated within the housing layouts to allow for the

incorporation of suitably sized specimen trees to garden frontages and publicly accessible open

space.

Planting Strategy

5.16 The planting strategy seeks to provide a mix of native and ornamental species to provide ecological

and aesthetic qualities to the external built environment by:

• Creating an attractive environment with year round colour and interest for the residents

• Helping to define boundaries and public areas

• Act as a buffer from unattractive views and noise pollution

• Planting wildlife friendly species which enhance existing boundaries. As well as

incorporating a more formal style, with specimen trees in avenues and clustered in open

spaces of grassland with wildflower planting to enhance aesthetics.

Appearance

5.17 As this is an outline application, no detailed proposals concerning materials and appearance have

been prepared. Nevertheless, it is anticipated the houses will be of traditional design and appearance,

using appropriate materials, including combinations of natural stone, pale render and similar exterior

wall treatments, with slate roofs, all of which should fit comfortably into the immediate surroundings.

Refuse Collection

5.18 All properties have adequate space within their gardens for storage of waste and re-cycling bins.


Page | 11

Access

5.19 There are no issues relating to levels and gradients. The development will comply with Part M

(Disabled Access) of the building regulations in terms of level approach, level thresholds and widths

of openings.

Sustainability Statement

5.20 The site is sustainably located on the boundary of Longridge, which will provide the proposed

development with access to local amenities, including Berry Lane Doctors and Drakes Dentists located

within 1 km of the site. Longridge Church of England Primary School and Longridge High School are

both located within 2 km of the site. Local supermarkets are located less than 2 km from the site (Co-

op and Booths) both located on Berry Lane, and a convenience store located 0.4 km from site on

Higher Road. As this site is located on the B5269, the site has access to transport amenities, with the

nearest bus stop located on Higher Road, 0.2 km from the site. In summary, everyday facilities are

within easy walking distance from the site, in addition, more facilities and services are available

elsewhere within Longridge, which can be accessed via bus services at the bus stop adjacent to the

site.

5.21 Vehicular access is currently taken off Chaigley Road to the corner of the southern corner of the site

which is to be stopped up as part of the proposal. The proposed site access is to be taken directly

from Higher Road with an integrated spine road serving the new dwellings, to be inclusive of relevant

improvement works. The site is dissected by footpath 3-2-FP37, this however is retained by the

indicative site plan utilising the proposed site access with no development to be built across it

throughout the remainder of the site.

5.22 The properties will be designed to meet the current building regulations with regards to thermal

efficiency and energy consumption. The construction process will source local materials and suppliers

which will reduce transport emissions both to and from the site. Furthermore, as illustrated within

both the drainage strategy the use of SUDS will help to ensure a sustainable and environmentally

friendly development.

Utilities Statement

5.23 Utilities have formed part of the planning and design considerations contributing towards the final

design layout. Given the site’s location there are existing connection points nearby that could serve

the site, and have capacity to serve the development in relation to electricity, gas, water and multi-

media infrastructure.


Page | 12

6 PLANNING POLICY ASSESSMENT

6.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be

determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate

otherwise, meaning any other supplementary / supporting planning documents and government

guidance as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012).

6.2 In this instance, the statutory Development Plan for the application site comprises of the Ribble Valley

Local Plan adopted on 16th December 2014 and the Ribble Valley Core Strategy 2008-2028, whilst the

emerging Ribble Valley Housing and Economic Development- Development Plan Document (HED-

DPD), NPPF and the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and

Planning Act 2016) are material considerations.

6.3 Currently the proposal maps published within the now replaced Districtwide Local Plan remains

adopted, until the revised set of plans that are being produced as part of the HED DPD become

adopted. In this regard, as included in Appendix A, there remains an unresolved objection to the

settlement boundary of Longridge within the emerging HED DPD, however in the Districtwide Local

Plan Proposals Map (1998) the site is located in the open countryside and falls just outside of the

settlement boundary of Longridge. It is however considered that the boundaries of the settlements

are out of date and need to be properly updated, through the HED DPD, if the housing and

employment needs of the Borough are to be properly met. For the purpose of the determination of

this application, it is contended that the settlement boundary of Longridge should not be a definitive

consideration.

Development Plan

6.4 The Ribble Valley Borough Council Core Strategy 2008 – 2028 was adopted in December 2014 and

therefore can broadly be regarded as containing relevant and up to date policies in the consideration

of this application. Furthermore, the following policies are considered to be relevant to the

determination of the application, however they will be afforded weight in accordance with their

consistency with the NPPF and this is discussed further in the Material Considerations section of the

statement: -

• Key Statement DS1: Development Strategy;

• Key Statement DS2: Sustainable Development;

• Key Statement EN2: Landscape;

• Key Statement EN4: Biodiversity and Geodiversity;

• Key Statement EN5: Heritage Assets;


Page | 13

• Key Statement H1: Housing Provision;

• Key Statement H2: Housing Balance;

• Key Statement H3: Affordable Housing;

• Policy DMG1: General Considerations;

• Policy DMG2: Strategic Considerations;

• Policy DME1: Protecting Trees and Woodlands;

• Policy DME2: Landscape and Townscape Protection;

• Policy DME3: Site and Species Protection and Conservation;

• Policy DME4: Protecting Heritage Assets;

• Policy DMH3: Dwellings in the Open Countryside & the AONB;

• Policy DMB4: Open Space Provision; and

• Policy DMB5: Footpaths and Bridleways.

6.5 Key Statement DS1 seeks to outline the locations in which growth will be focused. Whilst the

Statement refers to strategic sites already allocated for development, it also infers that in addition to

the allocated sites the majority of housing development will be located within the Borough’s principal

settlements, one of which is Longridge. Whilst the site falls outside of the current settlement

boundary, this matter is the subject of an unresolved objection to the emerging DPD and it cannot

therefore be treated as definitive. In any event, the site clearly has a functional relationship with the

settlement by virtue of its current land use, proximity, ease of access and its interaction with other

development both within and outside the formal settlement boundary.

6.6 The policy states that development in all settlements will be considered acceptable if it demonstrates

regeneration benefits and are ‘appropriate for consolidation and expansion or rounding-off of the

built-up area’. Therefore, whilst the site is on the periphery of the settlement the proposal offers the

opportunity to contribute to the housing supply within Longridge in a manner which interacts well

with adjacent development. The proposal constitutes development in an area that, to a degree, is

already built up and therefore represents a scheme far preferable to sporadic development in more

rural areas or smaller ‘Tier 1/2’ settlements. Furthermore, the site is an obvious and logical extension

to the existing settlement boundary and allows for the rounding off residential development whilst

delivering a high-quality, appealing, development, but would also help meet the housing need in

Longridge for the Core Strategy period as set out in Paragraph 4.12 and as discussed further under

‘material considerations’ below.

6.7 Finally, the development will also help meet an identified local need for a specialist type of self-build

/ custom-build accommodation, as required by the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as


Page | 14

amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016). The Council in this respect has a statutory duty to

help provide for such developments.

6.8 Key Statement DS2: Sustainable Development looks to mirror Paragraph 14 of the NPPF which details

the sustainable development principle that seeks to guide both authorities and developers. The

Statement details that:

6.9 “When considering development proposals, the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the

presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the Framework. The Council will

always work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean that proposals can be

approved wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and

environmental conditions in the area.

6.10 Planning applications that accord with the policies in this Local Plan (and where relevant, policies in

the neighbourhood plans) will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate

otherwise.”

6.11 As discussed further within this statement, it is considered that the development can be considered

sustainable development and therefore acceptable in the terms of this policy.

6.12 Key Statement EN2: Landscape, mainly focuses on protection of the Forest of Bowland AONB through

ensuring development contributes to the conservation of the area by enhancing and protecting the

landscape and character. The statement does offer more general coverage by linking the policy to the

protection of all landscapes outlining that the Council expects all development to be in-keeping with

the character of the local landscape.

6.13 In the council’s justification for the policy they state that:

“The Council will also seek to ensure that the open countryside is protected from inappropriate

development. Developers should adopt a non-standardised approach to design which recognises and

enhances local distinctiveness, landscape character, the quality of the built fabric, historic patterns

and landscape tranquility.”

6.14 The proposal would seek to use materials that are sympathetic to surrounding development. The

Indicative site plan and associated drawings, detail the intention to develop the site in a manner

which works with the existing topography. The layout provides a positive contribution to landscape

especially when arriving into Longridge from Higher Road.


Page | 15

6.15 Of course, as a matter of principle, the relevance of this policy to the application site is being

challenged on behalf of the applicant and this matter remains unresolved, such that it cannot be said

with any certainty that this policy will apply to the application site. In the event that policy is deemed

material to the application site and hence the proposals, it is considered that the specific type of

housing being proposed and the quality of the buildings would render the scheme in compliance with

this policy.

6.16 Key Statement EN4: Biodiversity and Geodiversity outlines the development should look to conserve

and enhance the local biodiversity and geodiversity and any negative impacts should be avoided. The

policy is in place mainly to add further protection to designated sites of environmental and ecological

importance, of which the Site is not. However, the overriding theme is that development should be

able to mitigate any perceived negative impacts. Within the supporting documents which accompany

this statement are both an ecological survey and a tree survey. These reports serve to demonstrate

the impact, if any, the development will have but also outline relevant mitigation to ensure the

acceptability of the proposal. Based on the report’s findings it is concluded that the proposal can be

delivered in a manner which is not at conflict with Key Statement EN4.

6.17 Key Statement EN5: Heritage Assets looks for heritage assets and their settings to be ‘conserved and

enhanced in a manner appropriate to their significance for the heritage value; their important

contribution to local character, distinctiveness and sense of place….’. In relation to new buildings the

Key Statement details that proposals should incorporate benefits that ensure no substantial harm is

brought upon heritage assets and that development makes a positive contribution to local sense of

place. These principles are echoed in Policy DME4: Protecting Heritage Assets which infers

development which does induce significant harm will not be supported.

6.18 As part of the application a Heritage Statement was also commissioned. It was concluded in the report

that the final design successfully conserves the significance and the setting of the nearby listed

building. The Heritage Statement is included within the supporting documents submitted as part of

this application.

6.19 Key Statement H1 focuses on housing provision; it states that the requirement for new homes will

be delivered in line with the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. Further to this

it states the Council will adopt a ‘plan-monitor-manage’ approach to ensure a rolling five-year land

supply is achieved and maintained. As previously outlined, it is in the opinion of PWA Planning that

the Council have failed to adhere to the commitments of this Key Statement, and that at present they


Page | 16

are unable to meet the needs of housing within Longridge. Subsequently this has ramifications

regarding the weight to be afforded to other Development Plan policies.

6.20 The subsequent statement Key Statement H2: Housing Balance, follows on from the above to outline

that planning permission will be granted when the proposal is in line with local demand as evidenced

in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The SHMA (2013) acknowledges the rise in

larger homes, noting it to be the fastest growing housing type within the region based on census data.

Furthermore, the document notes that 57% new market accommodation required in Ribble Valley

over the next 15 year will need to be 3 or more bedrooms (Table 6.4). Furthermore, the development

will also help meet an identified local need as required by the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding

Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016). The Council in this respect has a duty

to provide consent for such developments, as self-build requirements should form part of the SHMA.

6.21 Key Statement H3: Affordable Housing, outlines the requirement for development to deliver

affordable homes within residential developments. The policy states that within settlement areas

there is a contribution requirement of 30% on schemes of 10 dwellings or more, whilst in rural areas

the threshold is lowered to proposals of 5 or more dwellings. The proposal will deliver 4 self-build

affordable dwellings (27%) in line with the requirements of Key Statement H3, and will also provide

a financial contribution to cover the minor shortfall (3%) in meeting the 30% requirement. Whilst self-

build accommodation itself is not well provided for within Ribble Valley (or elsewhere), affordable

self-build dwellings are even rarer – in fact we are unable to find any examples within the Ribble

Valley.

6.22 Policy DMG1: General Considerations assists in ensuring that development proposals are in line with

numerous broad criteria by providing a series of overarching considerations regarding the quality of

developments. The policy categorises the criteria under 6 headings which are as follows:

• Design;

• Access;

• Amenity;

• Environment;

• Infrastructure;

• Other.

6.23 The design of the proposed scheme is thought to be well-considered and of a high standard that both

provides a quality addition to the local housing mix whilst being reflective and sympathetic to local


Page | 17

character. The design as submitted is the product of numerous iterations that have looked to respond

to the comments from all parties. This has resulted in the reduction of dwelling numbers to ensure

the scheme can be found acceptable in landscape terms without impacting on a potential drainage

strategy for the site.

6.24 The policy states that in relation to access any proposals are required to be safe and suitable, with

sufficient justification in relation to any potential traffic implications. Such matters were of course

considered prior to the submission of the application and it was concluded that the use of the access

off Higher Road has until now proved to be safe and appropriate in serving the existing dwellings. It

is thought that the introduction of the further dwellings will not generate any perceptible impacts

which would render the use of the access unacceptable. Furthermore, the development is served by

its own drive which accommodates sufficient parking space ensuring there is no need for vehicles to

park on the access track and potentially cause obstruction.

6.25 The undulation of the application site allows for the development to have a notably low impact when

approaching Longridge on Higher Road. The supporting drawings show views of the site from the

south-east to be mainly limited to the roofs and portions of the first floors. It is therefore considered

that any impact on amenity of views would be minor allowing the developer to deliver a well-

designed scheme, without impeding the local amenity of others when assessed against any of the

criteria outlined in Policy DMG1. In the context of the section of the policy which refers to

environmental considerations the site does not sit within any local or national landscape/ecological

designation. The application is supported by an ecological survey considering the impact the

proposal; this is discussed further in the technical considerations section of the report.

6.26 Policy DMG2 outlines further strategic considerations. The policy assists in the interpretation of the

Development Strategy and underpins the settlement hierarchy for the purposes of delivering

sustainable development. Part 1 The policy states that …

“DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IN THE PRINCIPAL SETTLEMENTS OF CLITHEROE, LONGRIDGE

AND WHALLEY AND THE TIER 1 VILLAGES SHOULD CONSOLIDATE, EXPAND OR ROUND-OFF

DEVELOPMENT SO THAT IT IS CLOSELY RELATED TO THE MAIN BUILT UP AREAS, ENSURING

THIS IS APPROPRIATE TO THE SCALE OF, AND IN KEEPING WITH, THE EXISTING

SETTLEMENT.”


Page | 18

6.27 It is clear that the proposed development would round-off and consolidate development in this part

of Longridge, so that it is closely related to the main built up areas. It would also be of an appropriate

scale and in keeping with the existing settlement. The proposals would therefore be consistent with

Policy DMG2.

6.28 Of course it is acknowledged that the policy also states that within the open countryside,

development will be required to be in keeping with the character of the landscape and acknowledge

the special qualities of the area by virtue of its size, design, use of materials, landscaping and siting.

As mentioned previously, there remains an unresolved objection to the definition of the Longridge

settlement boundary in this location and by extension whether the application site should be

considered to form part of the settlement of Longridge or part of the open countryside beyond. The

scheme is designed in such a way as to respond positively in either case.

6.29 Whether the site is deemed to be part of the open countryside or not, the type of proposal would be

supported through the application of this policy. In this regard the other part of DMG2 states that …

“WITHIN THE TIER 2 VILLAGES AND OUTSIDE THE DEFINED SETTLEMENT AREAS

DEVELOPMENT MUST MEET AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS:

1. THE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE ESSENTIAL TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY OR SOCIAL WELL

BEING OF THE AREA.

2. THE DEVELOPMENT IS NEEDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF FORESTRY OR AGRICULTURE.

3. THE DEVELOPMENT IS FOR LOCAL NEEDS HOUSING WHICH MEETS AN IDENTIFIED NEED

AND IS SECURED AS SUCH.

4. THE DEVELOPMENT IS FOR SMALL SCALE TOURISM OR RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS

APPROPRIATE TO A RURAL AREA.

5. THE DEVELOPMENT IS FOR SMALL-SCALE USES APPROPRIATE TO A RURAL AREA WHERE

A LOCAL NEED OR BENEFIT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED.

6. THE DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ENTERPRISE ZONE DESIGNATION.

6.30 The proposal does indeed provide for local needs housing, as as required by the Self-build and Custom

Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016). It is quite clear that

such housing does represent a specific local need and is, in part at least, evidenced by the self-build

register which must be kept by the Council. Moreover, the Council in this respect has a statutory duty

to help support and grant planning permission for such self-build / custom-build housing

developments.


Page | 19

6.31 It is considered that the development can be seen to be compliant with DMG2, even in the event that

the site is deemed to lie within open countryside.

6.32 To provide confidence in the proposals, the application is accompanied by a tree survey which details

the state of the onsite trees and how, if at all, the development will impact them. Based on its

conclusions the proposal adheres to Policy DME1: Protecting Trees and Woodlands.

6.33 Policy DME2: Landscape and Townscape Protection states the proposals which induce significant

harm to important landscapes or landscape features will not be supported. Such features are outlined

as including:

• “Traditional Stone Walls.

• Ponds.

• Characteristic Herb Rich Meadows and Pastures.

• Woodlands.

• Copses.

• Hedgerows and Individual Trees.

• Townscape Elements such as the Scale, Form, and Materials that Contribute to the

Characteristic Townscapes of the Area.

• Upland Landscapes and Associated Habitats Such as Blanket Bog.

• Botanically Rich Roadside Verges (That are Worthy of Protection).”

6.34 As with previous policies, it is considered that the supporting information is sufficiently detailed so as

identify the impact of the proposals to be acceptable. Effort has been made as to ensure disruption

to existing features is minimal and the development sits well within the local area. The proposal is of

a small scale and contained within a single field, currently used for equestrian purposes, and as such

its impact upon the immediate surroundings is thought to be minimal. Furthermore, as mentioned

previously the topography of the site limits the wider landscape impact of the proposals. On this basis,

the impact of the proposal in terms of landscape and townscape is not seen as a significant constraint

to development.

6.35 Policy DME3: Sites and Species Protection and Conservation, follows on from the above. As with

DME2 it seeks to protect elements of any proposal site which have notable value, with a focus on

relevant ecological designations such as Special Protection Areas and Site of Special Scientific

Interests (SSSI). Further to this it also places emphasis on the protection of priority habitats. The

development site is not covered by any local or national ecological designations and the


Page | 20

accompanying ecological assessment has outlined various migration measures which ensure the Site

would not be at contravention of the aforementioned policy.

6.36 Policy DMH3: Dwellings in the open countryside outlines that residential development within the

open countryside will be limited to the following:

• “Development essential for the purposes of agriculture or residential development which

meets an identified local need. In assessing any proposal for an agricultural, forestry or other

essential workers’ dwellings a functional and financial test will be applied;

6.37 As previously indicated, the development will help to meet an identified local need (a test set by the

policy) as required by the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing

and Planning Act 2016). The Council in this respect has a duty to help promote and grant consent for

such developments, and therefore the development is considered to meet the requirements set out

in the policy. The scheme is therefore presumed to be consistent with Policy DMH3, even assuming

that the site is ultimately determined to fall within the open countryside.

6.38 Policy DMB4 is in place mainly to respond to much larger schemes than the proposal at hand but

does detail that on a site by site basis the Council may look to negotiate for open space provision on

smaller sites where the overall level of supply is inadequate. It is considered that due to the modest

scale of the proposal, along with its location adjacent to the John Smiths playing fields and low

density, the need for on-site provision or off-site contribution is unnecessary. If the Council find,

during the determination period, that such a requirement does exist the applicant is willing to

consider an appropriate response to the matter.

6.39 Policy DMB5: Footpaths and Bridleways, looks to ensure the retention, maintenance and

improvement of the public rights of way network. The proposal at hand would not lead to the

blocking, diversion or closure of any PROWs and as such it is not believed that the development

conflicts with the policy. However, a footpath does run through the site (3-2-FP37) and has been

incorporated into the Indicative site plan.

Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

6.40 The NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions as per Paragraph 2 of the Framework and

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.


Page | 21

6.41 The NPPF sets out Government planning policies for England and how these are expected to be

applied. The golden thread running throughout the NPPF is the Government’s presumption in favour

of sustainable development (Paragraph 14) whereby proposed developments which correctly

balance the requirements of economic, social and environmental issues should be granted planning

permission unless there are strong reasons that permission should not be granted. The NPPF also

strongly supports economic and housing development.

6.42 Sustainable development is broadly defined in Paragraph 7 of the Framework as having three

dimensions; namely economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 17 sets out the core planning

principles which include the need to:

• “Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes,

business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs…

• Always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and

future occupants of land and buildings…

• Actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport,

walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made

sustainable...”

6.43 In terms of economic benefits, the proposal would make a positive contribution to housing land

supply in the Ribble Valley Borough Council area and the settlement of Longridge. The scale of the

development is in keeping with the locality and will clearly provide a significant economic boost

locally through the development of up to 15 new self-build homes. The self-build nature of the

dwellings means that there is a strong prospect that individual householders will employ local

tradesmen and contractors to complete the construction work and that the overall impact on the

local economy will be more marked than for the volume housebuilders.

6.44 The social aspect of sustainability is met, in that the proposal will result in the creation of a high-

quality environment, and comprises a compatible use in keeping with the neighbouring uses in the

immediate surrounds of the site. The development will contribute to the general market availability

and as outlined earlier in this statement the site lies just on the periphery of defined settlement

boundary of Longridge and therefore offers a location with excellent access to local services. The

proposed vehicular access to the new dwellings will be taken from the new access track, off Higher

Road. Additionally, with the site’s accessibility to the areas associated bus services, the development

can promote the use of sustainable transport modes and reduce reliance on the private car.


Page | 22

6.45 Turning to the environmental aspect of sustainability, the site is not subject to any statutory

ecological designations, Tree Preservation Orders, Heritage assets or protected species. It is not

within an area at risk of flooding as defined by the Environment Agency. Moreover the scheme will

provide the opportunity to provide increased environmental benefits for the site and the wider area

and these benefits will be explored more fully within any subsequent reserved matters submissions.

6.46 Paragraph 28 regarding ‘Supporting a prosperous rural economy’ outlines that planning policies

should support economic growth in rural areas. It outlines that this can be done through the approval

of well-designed new buildings.

6.47 Chapter 4 of the Framework, Promoting Sustainable Transport, at Paragraph 32 states that

development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual

cumulative impacts of development are severe. It is clear that this is not the case with the proposal

now before the council.

6.48 Section 6 of the NPPF seeks to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes. In particular, Paragraphs

47 and 49 relay government policy in relation to identifying and updating annually, a supply of specific

deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements,

along with the need for housing applications to be considered in the context of the presumption in

favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 49 also states that relevant policies for the supply of

housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a

five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. These aspects of NPPF guidance are directly relevant to

the determination of the Proposed Development given that the most recent consideration of the

Council’s housing supply identified evidence of persistent under-delivery of housing and a very

marginal 5 year supply position, when the 20% buffer was reinstated (see paragraph 20 of the appeal

decision included at Appendix B).

6.49 Of equal significance in the context of housing land supply, is the fact there is no clear indication that

the planning permissions granted or other sites proposed by the Council will achieve the right amount

of housing to meet the need for Longridge as set out in the Core Strategy. As such it is considered

that sites well related to the principal settlement, such as this site, will be needed to ensure that

housing needs are met and that these would therefore represent sustainable development as sought

by national planning policy.

6.50 In this respect, it is noted that there has been a considerable undersupply of housing completions in

Longridge during the Plan Period, and that therefore there is a need to significantly increase


Page | 23

completions in coming years, in order to meet the minimum housing target in Longridge and deliver

the aspirations of the Core Strategy (Paragraph 4.12 of the Core Strategy). This is based on a

completion figure for Longridge and Longridge Parish, at April 2017, of 226 dwellings against a plan

period requirement of 960 dwellings (to March 2028), leaving a residual requirement of 734

dwellings. Assuming 11 years left of the Core Strategy period, in order to meet the minimum during

this period, a completion rate of 67 dwellings per annum is required. The completion rate in the first

9 years, for comparison, has been just 25 dwellings per annum.

6.51 In order to increase housebuilding to an average of 67dpa, it seems apparent that a number of

additional sites will be required during the Plan Period. Planning policy is clear that where

undersupply has occurred, increasing the number of consents to make up for a shortfall is a good way

of increasing delivery.

6.52 Perhaps equally importantly it seems apparent that there is little risk that, even with the addition of

a further 15 dwellings resulting from The Stables, the minimum figure for Longridge identified at 960

dwellings will be substantially exceeded. This figure is itself a reduction from the assessed need for

Longridge which was 200 dwellings more, but which was adjusted to take into account some

development within the Preston city area and the transfer of some of the need to other smaller

settlements. The table below shows expected aggregate completions from the three large sites

expected in the Longridge area.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total

Chipping Road

12 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 6 258

Dilworth Lane

24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 6 270

Preston Road

12 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 6 186

36 48 48 60 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 18 714

6.53 As can be seen even with all three of these sites delivering as anticipated, the Longridge minimum

requirement would still not be fully met and hence would rely upon increased delivery rates or other

additional sites being brought forward. It would certainly not be exceeded by any material amount

and, even if it were, this would be a positive outcome, assuming the approved schemes represent

sustainable development. We therefore believe that the site considered as part of this planning

application should be approved in order to help the Council to ensure delivery of the minimum

housing requirement for Longridge in the Core Strategy.


Page | 24

6.54 Paragraph 56, in relation to design, states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable

development. This submission includes a Design and Access statement which considers the design

principles in detail, ensuring that the Proposed Development is compliant with the requirements of

the Framework in contributing positively to making places better for people.

6.55 Chapter 10 of the Framework considers climate change, flooding and coastal change. Paragraph 100

states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing

development away from areas at highest risk.

6.56 The site is located entirely within Flood Zone 1 and therefore it is not considered the proposal poses

any additional risk to flooding in the local area. Paragraph 103 states that when determining planning

applications, Local Planning Authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere.

6.57 Paragraph 187 of the Framework states that Local Planning Authorities should look for solutions

rather than problems, and that decision takers at every level should seek to approve application for

sustainable development where possible.

6.58 Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, Local Planning

Authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

6.59 Paragraph 215 states that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans in

accordance to their degree of consistency with the Framework, in that the closer the policies in the

plan are to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that should be afforded.

6.60 This statement and supporting documents have demonstrated that this application is consistent with

the above statement, in that the development will not generate significant adverse impacts and

should therefore be subsequently approved.

HED DPD

6.61 It is a requirement of the emerging DPD that it is able to meet in full the housing, employment and

other identified needs of the Borough during the plan period. This needs to be achieved through its

policies and particularly its land use allocations, including settlement boundaries. At this stage we

believe that the approach taken by the Council is unsound, as it will not be effective in delivering the

right amount of development. This is further supplemented by the under delivery of dwellings to

meet the needs of Longridge as discussed above.


Page | 25

6.62 In the case of residential development, which makes up the largest likely land use allocation, the

Council appears to believe that meeting only the minimum housing requirements set out in the Core

Strategy is a correct way to plan for the future development of the Borough. This is evidenced by the

fact that the Council seeks only to identify those sites for which planning permission has been granted

and which notionally would meet the minimum requirements, if all sites were developed entirely as

planned. It is also clear from the fact that the Council is seeking new allocations in only a very small

number of settlements, on the basis that these settlements still have a ‘residual requirement’, based

on figures in the Core Strategy. Of course it remains clear that the residual requirement is the shortfall

in numbers to meet the minimum requirements. It is certainly not a ceiling; indeed it is quite the

opposite. Core Strategy policy sets the housing requirement as a minimum in order to ensure that

additional development over and above the minimum is encouraged and is a sensible way to ensure

that minimum requirements are exceeded.

6.63 It is clear from past evidence that approved housing schemes will not always deliver any or all of the

housing anticipated in the expected timeframe (see discussion above in relation to Longridge) and

that much can change over the lifetime of the plan. Unless all approved housing sites deliver precisely

as anticipated, it is clear that the policies of the DPD will fail to deliver the Core Strategy housing

requirement. Having no alternative strategy in place, through additional or reserve allocations in the

emerging DPD is therefore plainly inappropriate and would render the plan unsound in our opinion.

6.64 For this reason, it is considered that suitable sites within or on the periphery of all settlements should

be considered for identification within the emerging HED DPD. We have therefore identified the

aforementioned site subject of this planning application as part of an additional site within the HED

DPD and the settlement boundary should be amended accordingly. Full details of this unresolved

settlement boundary objection are included in Appendix A, it is as such considered an important

material consideration in the determination of the planning application.

SELF-BUILD AND CUSTOM HOUSEBUILDING ACT 2015

6.65 This application seeks permission for up to 15 self-build dwellings. In this respect, there is a duty for

Local Planning Authorities to plan for self-build developments as a recognised local housing need

which in turn should feed into the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment.

6.66 The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act

2016) requires each relevant authority to keep a register of individuals and associations of individuals

who are seeking to acquire serviced plots of land in the authority’s area for their own self-build and

custom housebuilding.


Page | 26

6.67 Local planning authorities should use this demand data from the registers in their area, supported as

necessary by additional data from secondary sources when preparing their Strategic Housing Market

Assessment to understand and consider future need for this type of housing in their area (Planning

Practice Guidance, Paragraph: 011 Reference ID: 57-011-20160401).

6.68 Relevant authorities must give suitable development permission to enough suitable serviced plots of

land to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in their area. The level of demand

is established by reference to the number of entries added to an authority’s register during a base

period (Planning Practice Guidance, Paragraph: 023 Reference ID: 57-023-201760728).

6.69 Relevant authorities should consider how they can best support self-build and custom housebuilding

in their area. This could include (as set out in Planning Practice Guidance, Paragraph: 025 Reference

ID: 57-025-201760728):

• Developing policies in their Local Plan for self-build and custom housebuilding;

• Using their own land if available and suitable for self-build and custom housebuilding and

marketing it to those on the register;

• Engaging with landowners who own sites that are suitable for housing and encouraging

them to consider self-build and custom housebuilding and facilitating access to those on

the register where the landowner is interested; and

• Working with custom build developers to maximise opportunities for self-build and custom

housebuilding.

Other Relevant Local Guidance

Strategic Housing Market Assessment report (2013)

6.70 This report was produced as an update to the adopted 2008 assessment. The report is similar to the

previous version in that it looks to assess the suitability and effectiveness of the relevant housing

policy in aiding the council achieve its housing provision targets.

6.71 The report summarises that the most common type of homes in the region are detached, only 8%

were flats which is over 14% lower than the national average. Additionally, the Private Rented Sector

is thought to have grown 60% between 2001-2011, with the proportion of homes in the sector

supported by Housing Benefit/Local Housing Allowance being 5% lower than the national average.

The average house price within the area (£246,519), was shown to be higher than the average for the

North West and England.


Page | 27

6.72 Whilst the annual homes target has been increased since the assessment was produced, from 250 to

280 per annum, the report is still broadly applicable as to the regions housing market. The SHMA

(2013) acknowledges the rise in larger homes, noting it to be the fastest growing housing type within

the region based on census data. Furthermore, the document notes that 57% new market

accommodation required in Ribble Valley over the next 15 year will need to be 3 or more bedrooms

(Table 6.4).

SUMMARY

6.73 In this instance, the Development Plan for the site comprises of the Ribble Valley Borough Council

Core Strategy 2008 – 2028 (2014). Additionally, key policy documents that comprise ‘material

considerations’ include to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the emerging HED DPD,

the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act

2016) and any local supplementary planning guidance documents considered relevant to the

proposal. The preceding assessment discussed the proposed development in the context of the

Council’s planning policy. It is considered that the development is consistent with the policies within

the Development Plan and constitutes sustainable development as sought by the NPPF.

6.74 With regards to the principle of development, it is considered the proposed development is

consistent with Policies DS1, H2, DMG2 and DMH3. The development represents a site that has a

functional relationship with the Longridge settlement by virtue of its proximity, ease of access and its

interaction with other development both within and outside the formal settlement boundary. It

would also assist in consolidating and rounding-off of the built-up area, contributing to the housing

supply within Longridge. The proposal constitutes development in an area that, to a degree, is already

built up and therefore represents a scheme far preferable to sporadic development in more rural

areas or smaller settlements. Furthermore, it would also contribute to meeting local needs, and

helping the Council to discharge is statutory duties under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding

Act 2015, through the provision of self-build dwellings, further demonstrating compliance with the

requirements set by the aforementioned policies.

6.75 Moreover it seems evident that the Council has a very marginal housing land supply based on

evidence considered at a recent planning appeal decision (see Paragraph 20, Appendix B), but more

importantly the Council cannot meet its housing need for Longridge and as such, suitable sites

adjacent to the settlement are needed in order to boost the supply of housing in Longridge to enable

the Council to deliver its Core Strategy. Where the Council is unable to robustly demonstrate a 5 year

supply, national guidance is clear, in that the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development


Page | 28

means that planning permission should be granted, unless the impacts of doing so would significantly

and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The scheme is considered capable of delivering sustainable

development and in a manner which will not give rise to any adverse impacts, and certainly none that

would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

6.76 Additionally, there remains an unresolved objection to the emerging HED DPD over the settlement

boundary of Longridge which is an important material consideration in the determination of this

planning application (see Appendix A).


Page | 29

7 CONCLUSION

7.1 PWA Planning is retained Mr Andrew Billington to prepare and submit an outline planning application,

with access, for the proposed residential development of up to 15 no. self-build dwellings, including

the provision of 4 on-site affordable self-build dwellings on land to the west of Higher Road,

Longridge.

7.2 The proposals are considered consistent with relevant Development Plan policy, and should policy

conflict be considered to exist, it has been demonstrated that it is confined to policies for the supply

of housing which are affected by the guidance set out in the NPPF and other material considerations

set out by this statement. The impacts of the development are limited and the benefits are significant,

such that the balance is heavily in favour of the scheme, even before applying the weighting inherent

in Paragraph 14 of NPPF. The development scheme is therefore considered to represent sustainable

development.

7.3 The scheme is submitted with a suite of technical reports and other evidence which clearly

demonstrate that there would be no significant adverse impacts resulting from the proposed

development and hence no reason that planning permission ought not to be granted.

7.4 The works would result in a number of key benefits which are deemed relevant to the determination

of the application, namely: -

• Delivery of 15 no. much needed new homes, assisting the Authority in meeting its objectively

assessed needs;

• The enhancement of local character and distinctiveness through the implementation of

sensitive landscaping measures;

• Support for existing businesses and suppliers in the area during construction, contributing to

the local economy;

• A significant contribution to local need housing through the provision of self-build plots,

including affordable self-build;

• A significant contribution to meeting housing need within Longridge;

• Development which is capable of occurring without significant harm to any interests of

acknowledged importance.

7.5 For the reasons identified within this statement, it is considered that planning permission for the

Proposed Development should be granted and the application is commended to the authority.


Page | 30

APPENDIX A: HED DPD OBJECTION TO POLICY HAL

Regulation 19 Publication Version of the HEDDPD

Representations on behalf of Mr A. Billington

Land at The Stables, Chaigley Road

OBJECTION TO POLICY HAL

1. PWA Planning is retained to act on behalf of Mr A. Billington, being the owner of land within the

area referred to within this submission and in the Ribble Valley Council area, and to provide

comments to the Publication Version of the Housing and Economic Development DPD (HEDDPD),

together with the associated documents.

2. It is a requirement of the emerging DPD that it is able to meet in full the housing, employment and

other identified needs of the Borough during the plan period. This needs to be achieved through

its policies and particularly its land use allocations, including settlement boundaries. At this stage

we believe that the approach taken by the Council is unsound, as it will not be effective in

delivering the right amount of development.

3. In the case of residential development, which makes up the largest likely land use allocation, the

Council appears to believe that meeting only the minimum housing requirements set out in the

Core Strategy is a correct way to plan for the future development of the Borough. This is evidenced

by the fact that the Council seeks only to identify those sites for which planning permission has

been granted and which notionally would meet the minimum requirements, if all sites were

developed entirely as planned. It is also clear from the fact that the Council is seeking new

allocations in only a very small number of settlements, on the basis that these settlements still

have a ‘residual requirement’, based on figures in the Core Strategy. Of course it remains clear

that the residual requirement is the shortfall in numbers to meet the minimum requirements. It is

certainly not a ceiling; indeed it is quite the opposite. Core Strategy policy sets the housing

requirement as a minimum in order to ensure that additional development over and above the

minimum is encouraged and is a sensible way to ensure that minimum requirements are

exceeded.

4. It is clear from past evidence that approved housing schemes will not always deliver any or all of

the housing anticipated in the expected timeframe and that much can change over the lifetime of

the plan. Unless all approved housing sites deliver precisely as anticipated, it is clear that the

policies of the DPD will fail to deliver the Core Strategy housing requirement. Having no alternative

strategy in place, through additional or reserve allocations in the emerging DPD is therefore plainly

inappropriate and would render the plan unsound in our opinion.

5. The flaws in the Council’s approach and the efforts being made to “do the bare minimum” and to

largely seek to disregard National Planning Policy Framework requirements in Paragraph 47 to

“boost significantly the supply of housing” are evident across the published document. No

reference is made to the fact that the housing requirements are set as a minimum, NOT a

maximum or a ceiling. Reading the document one would assume that the purpose is to complete

a paper exercise in meeting a mathematically derived target and to then prevent all further

development. This is the antithesis of what the Government advocates through NPPF and Practice

Guidance.

6. For this reason it is considered that suitable sites within or on the periphery of all settlements

should be considered for identification within the emerging HEDDPD. It is therefore inappropriate




to restrict the call for sites (which is being undertaken concurrently with the DPD consultation) to

the settlements of Mellor and Wilpshire.

7. We have therefore identified additional land (see attached plan) which we believe ought to be

included within the settlement boundary of Longridge in order to assist in meeting future needs

within the settlement in particular and the Borough more generally. Despite the suggestion that

sites are only being sought in those limited settlements, we believe this to be a flawed approach.

8. A similar approach is apparent in the definition of a number of draft settlement boundaries. The

original boundaries were set in the 1998 Districtwide Local Plan (now nearly 20 years old). A topic

paper1 has previously been produced which gives background information. It does not appear that

the Council has looked closely at the true present day boundaries of the settlements with a view

to encompassing all land uses which have greater affinity with the urban functions that

predominate in a settlement, e.g. residential, commercial, industrial, schools, parks etc. The topic

paper states that the first stage of boundary review has been to “establish the boundaries as they

are at present … taking the current boundaries established in 1998 as the starting and including all

current planning permissions granted since 1998 that have been built out or are currently awaiting

a start or completion”.

9. It seems that in some areas, the settlement boundaries have not been critically reviewed against

the criteria set out in the topic paper (section 4 – criteria for definition of a settlement boundary)

and that there remain a number of anomalies. Simple aerial imagery indicates that many of the

settlement boundaries do not follow logical boundaries and certainly do not “include all properties

physically linked to the main (built) part of the settlement, except those, such as operating farms,

that principally functionally relate to the surrounding countryside”.

10. In particular, the area to the north east of the current settlement boundary of Longridge is poorly

defined and currently excludes large areas of land which is clearly and functionally part of the

settlement. In particular, we have identified areas we consider ought properly to be included

within the settlement boundary. The plan attached includes the area which includes our clients

building and which adjoins a small area of parkland, immediately adjacent to the settlement

boundary. The land is clearly urban in character and is physically linked to the main part of the

settlement. Managed play areas and parkland is also an urban feature and this should be within

the settlement as is the case in most other circumstances. Furthermore, it encompases a further

property marking the end of the Longridge existing settlement boundary. It is therefore requested

that the land edged in red on the first plan attached, be included in the settlement boundary of

Longridge.

11. It is therefore considered that the local plan is unsound on the basis that it is not “positively

prepared” in that it is not demonstrated that it is prepared based on a strategy which will meet

needs, consistent with achieving sustainable development.

12. In order to rectify this situation, it is requested that additional residential allocations are made on

the periphery of Longridge, such as the land at The Stables, Chaigley Road and surrounding this

1 Interim Settlement Boundary Definition Topic Paper (March 2016)




area, appended to this document. Such allocations should then be reflected within Policy HAL and

the settlement boundaries on the Proposals Map.





Page | 31

APPENDIX B: APPEAL REF APP/T2350W/173174924

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 October 2017

by Roger Catchpole DipHort BSc(hons) PhD MCIEEM

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 25th October 2017

Appeal Ref: APP/T2350/W/17/3174924

Lower Standen Hey Farm, Whalley Road, Clitheroe BB7 1EA

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Dummer against the decision of Ribble Valley

Borough Council.

The application Ref: 3/2016/1196, dated 20 December 2016, was refused by notice

dated 28 February 2017.

The development proposed is the erection of 5 no. dwellings and associated works.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Preliminary Matters

2. As the proposal is near a listed building I have had special regard to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the

Act).

3. The Council has an emerging plan that is yet to be adopted. Consequently, this appeal will be determined in accordance with the extant development plan

having regard to the emerging policies, insofar as they may be relevant, and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (the Framework).

4. The appellants have drawn my attention to an appeal decision1 relating to a nearby building to the west of the appeal site. Whilst I have paid careful attention to this decision, the circumstances are not similar in all respects

because it is not within the setting of the listed building, has a significantly greater regard for its immediate landscape context, relies upon a more

innovative design approach and predates the existing development plan. Consequently, this appeal has been determined on its individual merits and the evidence before me.

Main Issue

5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of

the local area, bearing in mind the special attention that should be paid to the setting of the nearby Grade II listed building, ‘Lower Standen Farmhouse’.

Reasons

6. The appeal site is situated near the southernmost extent of the market town of

1 APP/T2350/A/12/2186164


Appeal Decision APP/T2350/W/17/3174924

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Clitheroe. It comprises an extended curtilage of a listed farmhouse and an

area of adjacent pasture that fronts onto the A671. The land generally rises from this road towards the farmhouse and is physically separated from the

settlement by Pendleton Brook. The proposal comprises five detached dwellings arranged along an east-west axis. Access to the site would be via an existing driveway that links the A671 to a cluster of residential dwellings to the

south west of the appeal site.

Character and appearance

7. ‘Lower Standen Farmhouse’ (Ref: 1072091) dates from the early 19th century and has a number of curtilage structures to the rear that have been converted for residential use. The farmstead occupies an elevated position in the

landscape to the west of the A671. Historic mapping confirms the presence of the farmstead and indicates that it was surrounded by agricultural land. The

building comprises a single range with a subservient, later addition projecting from its northern gable end. It is constructed from coursed rubble which is covered in pebbledash render on its front elevation. This building has an

unusual single storey and two storey bow window either side of its main entrance.

8. Whilst the setting of the building has been subject to domestication, with over-sized barn conversions and the construction of a modern bungalow immediately to the south, it nevertheless retains an agricultural character. This is because

the farmyard to the rear and pasture around the front still remain clearly legible. As these features are indicative of its former use they are of evidential

value. Notwithstanding the nearby bungalow, the buildings occupy a visually distinct position in comparison to the main settlement and, in landscape terms, are consequently read as a farmstead rather than as a residential development.

Given the above, I find that the setting of the listed building, insofar as it relates to this appeal, to be primarily associated with the extended curtilage

and pasture to the northeast of this building.

9. I observe from the plans and my site visit that the proposal would lead to a significant reduction in the openness of the nearby pasture and that the listed

building would no longer remain legible as a semi-isolated building associated with a former farmstead, despite the retention of a small area of pasture in the

southern part of the appeal site. I accept that this would maintain a primary view of the main elevation with glimpses of the farmyard beyond. However, this ignores the views of the wider farmstead, as set out above, which also

contribute to its setting and thus its evidential value.

10. Consequently, I find the assessment of heritage significance too narrowly

defined and therefore somewhat contrived. Furthermore, the suggestion that the proposal would be less harmful than changes that have already occurred

carries little weight as the existence of harm is not a justification for further harm. Bearing in mind the existing rural character and appearance of the site, when viewed from the A671, I also find that the proposal would have a highly

incongruent, suburbanising effect on the immediate area. This would not only result from the staggered, linear layout of the buildings and their regimented

roof form, but also the associated hard landscaping, plot subdivision and domestic paraphernalia of future occupants.

11. Whilst I accept that more distant, undefined, vantage points may give rise to

an inter-visibility that might suggest that the proposal is an integrated




extension of the southern settlement boundary, this is not how the proposal

would be experienced by the majority of people who would regularly view the site from the A671. The appellants are of the opinion that the proposal would

be well related to more recent development to the north of the appeal site. However, the open countryside is clearly demarcated at this point by the topography and vegetation associated with Pendleton Brook. Whilst similar in

design, the proposal would result in the disruption of an otherwise visually distinct settlement boundary. Given the above, I find that the proposal would

not only harm the setting of the listed building but would also be detrimental to the character and appearance of the rural landscape to the south of Clitheroe.

12. This impact would be significant given the high degree of visual prominence of

the site. I observed that the proposal would be clearly visible to southbound road users given the rising ground, low stone wall and small number of

intervening, deciduous trees. Whilst the trees are mature and would provide some screening during summer months this would not be the case during winter months when the scheme would be clearly visible. In any event, the

trees are an impermanent feature that could be removed or die from natural causes at any time on the basis of the evidence that is before me. This also

applies to the evergreen, boundary vegetation further to the south. If lost, the scheme would become clearly visible to northbound road users as well. As I have no planning mechanism before me to ensure the retention of these

features, they cannot be relied upon to mitigate the harm that I have identified.

13. Paragraph 132 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. It goes on to advise that

significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Given the separation

distances and retention of some of the pasture, I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances, paragraph 134 of the Framework advises

that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Clearly, the proposal would make, an albeit, small contribution to housing

provision and would be sustainably located in close proximity to a settlement with a wide range of services and alternative modes of transport. However, I do not find that this outweighs the harm that would be caused to the setting of

the listed building to which considerable weight and importance must be attached.

14. Given the above and in the absence of any significant public benefit, I conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of the Grade II listed

building. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 134 of the Framework and conflict with key statement EN5 and policies DMG1 and DME4 of the Ribble Valley Borough Council Core Strategy 2008-2028 (2014)

(CS) that seek, among other things, to ensure that the settings of heritage assets are conserved and protected and that all development has regard to its

surroundings, including any impact on landscape character. As a result, the proposal would not be in accordance with the development plan.

Housing land supply

15. Clitheroe is designated a Principal Settlement in Key Statement DS1 of the CS




which seeks to guide development to the most appropriate locations within a

series of identified settlements. When development occurs outside settlement boundaries, as defined by the retained proposals map of the former local plan,

it is deemed to be in the open countryside and policies DMG2 and DMH3 of the CS apply. The appellants accept that the site is outside the currently defined settlement boundary but are of the opinion that it may be subject to change in

the emerging plan. However, the Council have indicated that there are no unresolved objections to the position of the settlement boundary at this

location and that it will therefore remain unaltered on the emerging proposals map. Bearing in mind the late stage of the emerging plan, I give this some weight in the planning balance of this appeal.

16. Policy DMG2 indicates, among other things, that development in the open countryside will be required to be in keeping with the character of the

landscape. This would clearly not be the case, as set out in paragraph 10-12 of this decision. Policy DMH3 goes on to identify a number of exceptions where development may be permitted. None of these apply in this particular instance

and this fact is not disputed. However, the appellants have disputed the presence of a deliverable 5-year housing land supply (HLS) which, if accepted,

could lead to the engagement of paragraph 49 of the Framework which, in turn, would engage the so called ‘tilted balance’ as set out in paragraph 14 of the Framework. Irrespective of any conclusion relating to 5-year HLS,

paragraph 14 would not be engaged, however, because of the harm that I have identified to the setting of the designated heritage asset. This is because

footnote 9 of paragraph 14 of the Framework indicates that development should be restricted under such circumstances.

17. The Council has indicated that it has a 5.73-year HLS which is based on

information from April 2017 which is materially different from the position at determination which was based on information from September 2016. Despite

this fact, the appellants maintain that a deliverable 5-year HLS is not present. This is because they contend that a 5% buffer should not have been applied and that the available housing land supply has also been overestimated.

18. Turning to the first matter, the Council has justified the use of a 5% buffer through the application of a ‘housing delivery test’, as set out in a recent

Government White Paper2. This suggests that a 20% buffer should not apply where completions over the last three years of a monitoring period exceed the annualised requirement, as set out in a development plan. Whilst clearly

signalling Government intent, I find the adoption of this approach premature at the current time because it is based on a consultation document that could be

subject to change despite the fact that the approach was due for implementation by November 2017. In any event, I note that the Council has

used an unadjusted annualised requirement of 280 houses which has failed to account for a backlog of 750 houses which gives a higher annualised requirement of 430. Under such circumstances, it is clear that the Council has

failed to meet its annual targets since the beginning of the plan period. As such, I am satisfied that a persistent record of under-delivery is present.

19. Turning to the second matter, the appellants have suggested that there is a shortfall of deliverable housing that amounts to 2,357 homes rather than the 2,588 homes identified by the Council. This difference turns on the

2 Fixing our Broken Housing Market. February 2017. HM Government.




deliverability of three sites: Higher Standen Farm; 23-25 Old Row; and

Lawsonsteads. The Council concedes that the last site will make a reduced contribution of between 90-120 homes rather than the 160 that has been

estimated but is satisfied that the other two sites will deliver the expected number. In relation to the first site, I acknowledge the ‘conversation’ that occurred with the housebuilder but find that the conclusions have not been

substantiated in any written evidence. Consequently, this assertion only carries limited weight in the balance of this appeal. In relation to the second

site, I acknowledge that a reserved matters application is still pending and note the site history. However, under the terms of footnote 11 of paragraph 47 of the Framework I am satisfied that the site can still be considered deliverable.

20. Given the above, it follows that a potential shortfall of up to 70 homes would result in a 4.89-year HLS with a 20% buffer and a 5.57-year HLS with a 5%

buffer. However, the Council have allowed for a 10% slippage in its calculations for all sites with planning permission or awaiting Section 106 agreements that had not commenced by the 31 March 2017. As this amounts

to 177 homes and is not disputed by the appellants, I am satisfied that a 5-year HLS is present at the current time whichever buffer is applied.

21. I acknowledge the evidence concerning the local development land market across the Borough. However, the conclusions were not based upon a full market research report, as indicated in the relevant letter. Moreover, the

evidence comprised a single sentence which concluded that there was an upper sales limit in 2016 of around 2 houses per month. This was based upon

informal reporting rather than quantitative evidence and lacks a suitable degree of robustness as a result. Furthermore, sales are not the same as completions and asking prices can be adjusted. Consequently, this evidence

can only be viewed as subjective, unsubstantiated opinion of a highly generalised nature with no specific link to the above sites. I therefore give it

limited weight in the planning balance of this appeal.

22. Given the above, I conclude that the development would be in the open countryside and that the full weight of locational policies applies. The proposal

would therefore be contrary to policies DMG2 and DMH3 of the CS and would not be in accordance with the development plan.

Conclusion

23. For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Roger Catchpole

INSPECTOR


Documents

The Stables, Chaigley Road, Longridge, PR3 3TQ · development) at The Stables, haigley Road, Longridge, PR3 3TQ. The Planning Statements purpose is to assess and conclude on the acceptability