Pickles accepts accelerated development of site allocated for later phases of neighbourhood plan

A planning expert has said that the novel circumstances of the decision might limit its relevance to neighbourhood planning in general, but noted the communities secretary's comments that it was "vital that the confidence of the local community in the planning system, and in particular in its own neighbourhood plan, should not be eroded".

Developer Davidsons Developments submitted two alternative planning applications to Harborough District Council in 2013, seeking permission to build between 24 and 28 homes on a field to the south-east of the village of Broughton Astley. The Council refused permission for both proposals and the developer's subsequent appeals were recovered by the communities secretary because the proposals "raise[d] important or novel issues of development control".

Following a public inquiry in November 2014, planning inspector Mike Fox recommended that planning permission should be refused for the first alternative planning application (Appeal A), but granted for the second application (Appeal B). A decision letter (58-page / 610 KB PDF) issued on behalf of the communities secretary said Pickles agreed.

The adopted Broughton Astley neighbourhood plan (NP) allocated the appeal site as a reserve site for development in the years 2020 to 2023, before which 400 homes were expected to have been delivered at two larger allocated sites. However, the NP also said that development of sites that brought the most potential benefit in the shortest timescale would be supported, and it allowed for the consideration of the reserve site ahead of time should earlier phased housing not be delivered.

Pickles agreed with the inspector that there was a housing shortfall in the Council's administrative area and that only 270 to 300 homes were likely to be delivered under the NP by April 2019. The communities secretary also agreed that the appeal proposals were capable of being delivered quickly, that bringing forward delivery "would be justified in light of the lack of a five year housing land supply" and that accelerated development would not undermine the NP because it was unlikely to delay progress at the other allocated sites.  

Turning to the detail of the alternative schemes, Pickles found that the scheme proposed under Appeal A, under which bungalows would be built near an existing three storey building, would cause unacceptable loss of amenity and harm to the living conditions of existing or future occupiers. However, the design of the proposal under Appeal B was considered acceptable and its benefits were considered to "weigh overwhelmingly in favour of the proposed development".

Planning expert Elizabeth Wiseman of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said: “The novel scenario in this situation has led to a decision which would appear to be limited to the specific circumstances. Due to the fact that the NP allocated the appeal site for later development, and specifically allowed for early development of the site should other developments fall behind, it followed that it was reasonable to determine that the proposal was supported in principal by the development plan." 

"It would be interesting to see what would happen in the case of delayed delivery where there was no provision for early development within the neighbourhood plan, particularly given Pickles’ comments about eroding people’s confidence in the planning system," Wiseman said.

The Council, or any other interested party, has the right to challenge the decision in the High Court within six weeks.