Communities secretary refuses permission for 85 homes, citing conflict with emerging neighbourhood plan

A planning expert has noted that, in coming to his decision, Pickles gave "significant weight" to the conflict with the policies of the emerging neighbourhood plan, despite the fact that they had not yet been examined by a planning inspector.

Housebuilders JM Beatty, IS Clark and Redrow Homes South applied to Wellingborough Borough Council in September 2013, seeking outline planning permission to build 85 homes on a field immediately south of the built-up area of the village of Earls Barton. Permission was refused by the Council and the communities secretary recovered the housebuilders' subsequent appeal for his own determination due to its potential impact on the emerging Earls Barton neighbourhood plan (NP).

Planning inspector Keith Manning held a public inquiry in August 2014 and recommended that the appeal be allowed and permission be granted for the scheme. A decision letter (62-page / 690 KB PDF) issued on behalf of the communities secretary said Pickles disagreed with the inspector's recommendation.

The letter said Pickles agreed with Manning that the proposal would be "contrary to the basic intentions of the existing development plan", which sought to concentrate development in built up areas and avoid building on open countryside. The communities secretary also agreed that the Council was unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, however, meaning that individual housing policies in the existing spatial plan were out-of-date and a presumption in favour of sustainable development was engaged.

The emerging NP anticipated the delivery of around 400 new homes in Earls Barton in the plan period, taking into account existing permissions which included 280 homes on a single site called 'the Grange' in the northern part of the village. The NP's policies directed nearly all development to the north of the settlement around the Grange, but allowed for infill within a village boundary which excluded the appeal site and small scale affordable housing development outside but abutting the boundary.

Pickles agreed with the inspector that the appeal proposal conflicted with the NP, being large-scale, open market development outside the village boundary. However, he disagreed with the inspector's conclusion that the spatial pattern of development envisaged in the NP would only be undermined to a limited extent by developing a site to the south of the settlement boundary that was contained on three sides by existing residential development.

Noting that the NP had not yet been examined, put to referendum or made part of the development plan, the communities secretary nevertheless took the view that conflict with it should be given "significant weight". The letter said the communities secretary had had regard to the fact that "the neighbourhood planning process … has been wholeheartedly embraced by the Earls Barton community" and that the majority of the community supported "the location of significant development … in the right part of the village".

The communities secretary disagreed with the inspector's view that no demonstrable environmental harm would be caused by allowing the proposal. Unlike the inspector, Pickles found that the scheme would cause "the impression of sprawl", would reduce the visual amenity along a public footpath through the appeal site and was likely to result in the loss of high quality agricultural land: harms to which he gave "significant weight".

Pickles accepted that no argument could be made for rejecting the appeal on grounds of prematurity to the NP, in light of the Council's previous approval for the much larger development at the Grange. He also agreed that substantial weight should be given to the economic and social benefits of the scheme.

However, Pickles was satisfied that "the adverse impacts in regard to conflict with the submitted NP and in consequence the harm to the perceived effectiveness of the neighbourhood planning process, together with the adverse environmental impacts, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the [National Planning Policy] Framework as a whole".

Planning expert Elizabeth Wiseman of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said: “In recent decisions, Eric Pickles has tended to give reduced weight to policies in neighbourhood plans that have not yet reached the examination stage, particularly in areas without a five year housing land supply. This decision is a clear departure from these previous decisions and has seen 'significant weight' attributed to conflict with an emerging neighbourhood plan."

"The communities secretary also attached more weight than might have been expected to other potential effects including the visual amenity of a footpath, the assumption that good quality agricultural land would be lost and the claim that the development would give the impression of urban sprawl despite it being contained on three sides by existing residential development," said Wiseman. "All in all in this instance Eric Pickles seems to have done all that he can to defend neighbourhood planning. We will have to wait and see whether this attitude continues.”

The housebuilders, or any other interested parties have the right to challenge the decision in the High Court within six weeks.