Recently adopted housing policies considered not to be up-to-date in area without 'robust' housing supply

Herefordshire Council's local plan core strategy was adopted last October following an examining inspector's conclusion that the Council could demonstrate a 5.24-year supply of deliverable housing land. Under the core strategy, a minimum of 800 new homes were expected to be built in the town of Ledbury, 625 of which were to be built on a single site to the north of the town.

In March 2015, the Council had refused an application from developer Gladman Developments for outline permission for a 321-home development on fields to the south of Ledbury. The site was not allocated in the core strategy, but had been identified as a site with future potential for development towards the end of the plan period.

Planning inspector Jennifer Vyse held an inquiry into the developer's appeal in February. In a decision letter issued on 4 April (36-page / 376 KB PDF), Vyse said she was "not persuaded that the Council can demonstrate a robust five-year housing supply at the present time".

By the time of the inquiry, the Council was claiming a 5.00-year supply of housing land, having reduced its anticipated figures for the delivery of homes at allocated sustainable urban extensions (SUEs). Vyse was concerned that proposed build out rates for the SUEs in the Council's revised figures were not supported by evidence and that lead-in times "might be ambitious". The inspector also identified several small sites relied upon by the Council which she said were unlikely to be delivered at the rate anticipated.

Vyse said the identified shortfall in the five-year housing supply "needs addressing now". Whilst the appeal site was "not located within the strategic directions growth identified for Ledbury", the inspector said such housing policies should not be considered up-to-date in light of the supply situation.

The inspector also noted that a core strategy policy said the Council would prioritise increasing housing supply using "appropriate measures" should completions be shown to have fallen below target levels. Vyse said measures anticipated in the core strategy included "bringing forward sites identified as being deliverable and developable in the 2012 strategic housing land availability assessment (SHLAA) if there are unforeseen constraints to larger strategic sites being developed as planned".

The appeal site was identified in the 2012 SHLAA as being suitable for development, sustainable and deliverable. As the site was also  identified in the core strategy as having development potential towards the end of the plan period, Vyse was satisfied that "all in all … the development proposed would not result in material conflict with the vision and spatial strategy for the district when the development plan is considered as a whole".

The inspector said that, even if she had found material conflict with the development plan, she considered the proposal to be sustainable development. Vyse said there would be some localised harm to the character and appearance of the area under the proposals, which would reduce the area of undeveloped countryside around Ledbury. However, the inspector was satisfied that the benefits of the scheme, including new homes, affordable housing, jobs and local spending, would not be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the limited harms identified.

Planning expert Jo Miles of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said: "This is one of the first major housing appeals to be determined since the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment clarifying the meaning of 'policies for the supply of housing' at paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework."

"In this appeal the inspector rejected the appellant’s argument that policies SS6, LD1 and LD3 are relevant to the supply of housing, finding instead that they are environmental qualitative policies, not locational policies that seek to restrict development. However, the inspector did find that a policy directing housing development in Ledbury towards locations which did not include the appeal site was a policy for housing land supply and was to be considered out of date in light of her conclusion that the Council could not demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites," Miles said.

"In reaching this conclusion on the Council’s housing land supply, the inspector acknowledged that the core strategy had been adopted less than six months ago, but noted that circumstances relating to housing land supply are fluid even over short periods of time," said Miles. "She therefore invited evidence from both parties and undertook a detailed re-examination of housing land supply at the date of the appeal inquiry."

"This appeal can be seen as a warning to authorities to ensure they can demonstrate a rolling five-year land supply at all times, and particularly going into inquiries on major housing appeals, and an invitation to developers to challenge authorities’ evidence on housing land supply, even where such evidence has been recently accepted at a local plan examination," she said.