Planning inspector unconvinced that permission for 300 greenfield homes will prejudice brownfield development

Durham County Council refused permission for the proposed scheme, for a site in the town of Spennymoor, in December 2014. Planning inspector Malcolm Rivett allowed an appeal against the Council's refusal last month (11-page / 177 KB PDF), finding that the proposal constituted sustainable development and that the limited harm it was likely to cause would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits.

The Council had argued that the housing market in Spennymoor was weak and that allowing the appeal proposal would slow down or prevent the delivery of homes on previously developed sites in the town which had already received approval. The inspector disagreed, noting that evidence of new housing completions indicated a more buoyant housing market than the Council suggested and showed that "greenfield and brownfield housing sites can successfully be simultaneously delivered in the town". Rivett also noted that no owners or developers of local brownfield sites had submitted objections to the scheme, or even raised concerns in writing.

Rivett considered it likely that a deliverable housing supply of "around about five years" could be demonstrated by the Council. Whilst there was not "a fundamentally pressing need for permission to be granted for the appeal scheme in order that housing needs can be met", the inspector did not consider this to be a reason justifying refusal of the scheme, noting that "an ongoing supply of new permissions for housing will be necessary for the Council to maintain a five year supply of housing land".

The inspector said the Council had indicated that Durham's housing needs could not be met on previously-developed land alone and noted that, although it was valued by local residents including dog walkers, there was "nothing about the appeal site which would warrant its protection against development over and above any other area of countryside". Rivett gave little weight to a policy of the emerging County Durham Local Plan (CDLP) which sought to "prevent most new development on non-allocated sites in the open countryside". He said the policy was objected to and the CDLP had yet to be found sound.

The inspector was satisfied that "no significant harm would be caused in respect of schools, wildlife or the highway network" and said he had seen "no convincing evidence to indicate that hospitals would be adversely affected" by allowing the development. He said the benefits of granting permission for the scheme included the provision of homes, including up to 30 affordable homes, in a sustainable location close to transport links and an existing primary school; construction and financial benefits; provision of public open space; and biodiversity enhancements. Overall, Rivett considered that these benefits were not outweighed by the limited harms.

Planning expert Sophie Walter of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com said: "With the relevant development plan nearly two decades old and silent on key issues, the decision emphasises the importance for local planning authorities of having up-to-date planning policies. That the Inspector did not accept the Council’s ‘brownfield first’ stance was largely based on statistical evidence, but the site’s sustainable location within walking distance of key services was surely also a key factor."