Key decisions

Housing new build

Viability issues have been held to justify a 450-home scheme in Kent, despite conflict with site targets in the allocation policy. 

The greenfield site on the edge of a town had been allocated in a local plan for up to 550 dwellings. The policy required 30 per cent affordable housing, based on a high-level viability assessment carried out at the time. With a housing land supply shortfall and pressing need for affordable housing, the council sought full use of the allocated site. It argued that a scheme of more than 450 dwellings would be able to support a higher provision of affordable housing.

The appellants proposed a scheme of 450 dwellings and 15 per cent affordable homes after taking into account the findings of an environmental impact assessment and site-specific constraints, and supported by a viability appraisal.

The inspector preferred the appellant’s detailed site-specific assessment of viability to the council’s higher-level assessment, noting that the latest versions of the National Planning Policy Framework place emphasis on detailed site-specific viability assessments of allocations.

In his view, the appellant had satisfactorily demonstrated that it was not possible to achieve the maximum number of allocated houses or viably provide more than 15 per cent affordable housing. Local plan policy allowed for a reduction from 30 per cent where this would make the proposed development unviable, he observed, and the appellants’ planning obligations would include a viability review mechanism. 

The development would cause only limited harm to the setting of heritage assets and would provide adequate mitigation of impacts on a coastal special protection area, the inspector concluded.

Inspector: David Cliff; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-692

Comment: In this case, a developer’s detailed site-specific viability assessment trumped a council’s local plan viability assessment. The council had carried out a high-level viability assessment of the site as part of its  selection as a strategic allocation in the local plan preparation process. Under the plan, the site was required to deliver up to 550 homes and 30 per cent affordable housing. But the inspector accepted a lower affordable housing rate of 15 per cent. In doing so, he gave preference to the appellants’ more detailed assessment and agreed with their approach towards factors such as build costs, developer profit and mix of uses. He also approved the proposed scale of development in the application, despite it being short of the maximum level in the allocation, accepting the appellants' argument that site constraints limited the capacity of the site.

Housing new build

An out-of-date spatial strategy has led an inspector to allow a 175-home scheme on the edge of a Cambridgeshire town.

The council’s 2015 local plan set a target of 11,500 homes to be provided in the district, with the appeal site lying adjacent to one of three market towns where new housing was to be focused. The local plan stated that allocations would be made for around 6,500 homes on the edge of these towns, including at broad locations to be defined at a later plan review. There was consensus between the parties that the appeal site was located within one of these broad locations, although the inspector noted that the review setting specific boundaries for these had yet to occur.

The housing requirement in the local plan was out of date, the inspector held, because it was more than five years old. Although the council was progressing a single-issue review of the requirement, this was at a very early stage of preparation, he found. Therefore, in his view, the locational strategy was also out of date due to the fact that the up-to-date requirement was not yet known.

The inspector also judged that the adopted local plan had not been effective in ensuring a deliverable supply of housing sites because there had been a significant shortfall against requirements to date. A strict application of the spatial strategy would worsen this position, he held, given that it was not certain that sufficient housing would be provided within the defined settlement envelopes. These settlement boundaries were therefore also out of date, he judged.

The National Planning Policy Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development on the appeal site was therefore triggered on the site, the inspector ruled, despite the council being able to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land.

Inspector: Michael Boniface; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-664

Comment: This case shows that inspectors will be prepared to allow proposals when there has been a persistent under-delivery of housing in the past, even where the council can show that it has a five-year housing land supply. In this case, the local planning authority was able to show a 6.5-year supply of land. However, the inspector found that there had been a significant under-delivery of housing against local plan targets to date and that this under-delivery was likely to continue into the long term. The inspector had already found that the policy seeking to direct development to built-up areas was out of date, due to the fact that it was based on an out-of-date housing target. Despite the existence of the 6.5-year housing land supply, therefore, he concluded that the significant benefits of the scheme far outweighed its adverse impacts.

Latest cases

Community facilities

Very special circumstances have been found to justify approval of a retirement community on green belt land in Hertfordshire.

The proposal comprised 80 assisted living flats and 44 bungalows at a former garden centre site on the urban fringe near St Albans. The inspector decided that circumstances had changed since a previous proposal for a similar development on the site had been dismissed at appeal in 2020. In the earlier appeal, the inspector had concluded that the scheme benefits, including general and specialist elderly housing, were outweighed by harm to the green belt, the setting of listed buildings and the area’s character and appearance. 

After comparing the two schemes, the inspector concluded that revisions to the layout and design had reduced the scale and footprint of buildings, including removing the bulkier form of the care home proposed in the earlier scheme and incorporating greater areas of landscaping. He held that this significantly reduced the scheme’s impact on an open countryside gap and on the setting of listed buildings sufficiently for the heritage balance to favour the development.

The inspector decided that the evidence showed a high and growing need for and shortfall of extra-care units, a situation that he judged had not improved since the earlier appeal. He also recorded that although the area had higher owner occupation levels among older people than the national average, a recent housing needs assessment had found a relatively low level of provision of market extra-care housing. Furthermore, a government white paper published in December 2021 on adult social care reform set out a policy aspiration for a greater range of specialist housing for older people in both the private and social sectors, he remarked.

Due to a continuing general housing land shortfall in the district, with supply standing at only 2.4 years and delays in preparation of an emerging local plan, the inspector judged that the delivery of more than 120 homes also carried more weight than previously. In his view, the benefits of general and specialist housing should be given very substantial weight, and very special circumstances existed to justify the development in the green belt. 

Inspector: Tom Gilbert-Woolridge; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-633

Energy development

The substantial benefits of a 200-turbine wind farm off the Norfolk coast have been held to outweigh its cumulative impacts.

The secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy initially granted development consent for the 1,800MW Norfolk Vanguard offshore wind farm in the North Sea in 2020 (DCS Number 200-009-507). But the approval was quashed by the High Court in 2021, after a judge ruled that a decision on development consent could not be made without considering the cumulative impacts of both this scheme and the nearby Norfolk Boreas offshore wind farm proposal, on the grounds that the two schemes were closely related in time and geographical location. 

Subsequently, the secretary of state granted consent for the Norfolk Boreas wind farm in December 2021, after taking into account the cumulative impacts of the two schemes. He then also applied these findings to his redetermination of the Norfolk Vanguard project.

As the judicial review had found the original decision defective specifically in relation to onshore cumulative impacts, the secretary of state set aside his inspectors’ conclusion on landscape and visual effects. In doing so, he decided afresh that significant cumulative landscape and visual effects carried substantial weight against granting consent. 

However, despite also taking into account cumulative impacts on certain seabird species, the secretary of state again overruled the examiners’ recommendation that consent should be refused due to the potential impacts on protected coastal and estuary habitats and species. The substantial benefits of the development, particularly the scale of its contribution to renewable electricity and the urgent need to decarbonise the electricity supply, outweighed its negative impacts, he decided. 

Examiners: Karen Ridge, Caroline Jones, Gavin Jones, Grahame Kean; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-010-663

The ability to generate electricity quickly has been held to outweigh the adverse impacts of a proposed generating station in Essex.

The secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy granted consent for the 750MW gas-fired electricity generating station and battery storage facility. The proposal was located on a 20-hectare site in the green belt, on open fields next to an existing substation.

The site comprised agricultural land including registered common land and lay close to a former power station on the banks of the River Thames near to an industrial area and port. Following an amendment to the project that removed a proposed causeway that had the potential to harm the marine environment, the examining authority recommended that consent be granted.

The secretary of state agreed, despite acknowledging the adverse impacts of the scheme from loss of agricultural land, harm to green belt openness and the setting of some heritage assets, as well as increased CO₂ emissions. He decided that these impacts were outweighed by the need for the development set out in the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and the scheme’s ability to generate electricity quickly when demand outstrips supply. In reaching this conclusion, the secretary of state recognised that generating stations help offset the intermittency of electricity from renewable sources.

Examiner: Rory Cridland; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-010-669

Food and drink uses  

Retaining an outdoor seating area at a north London pub would harm the building’s character and appearance, an inspector has held. 

The council had taken enforcement action against a roof structure over the rear balcony of the pub in Hackney. The works, which had been installed during the Covid-19 pandemic, also involved the erection of timber walls with plastic windows around a seating area to the side. The council objected to the effect of the works on the character and appearance of the locally-listed building.

The inspector identified that the significance of the pub as a non-designated heritage asset lay in both the distinctive character and appearance of the building itself and its all-round visibility in public views, making it a prominent and distinctive landmark. In his assessment, the unauthorised structures obscured views of the building. Because of their size and the use of poor-quality materials, they also detracted from its character and appearance, causing great harm to the non-designated heritage asset, he held.

The appellants provided evidence of strong local support for the outside seating areas. They also referred to the written ministerial statement of 5 March 2021 that set out the government’s support for the reopening of outdoor hospitality following the first lockdown and encouraged councils to plan for outdoor dining. However, the inspector held that the focus of the statement was on measures such as pavement licences and outdoor capacity on the public highway, or marquees for temporary outdoor events. None of these were relevant to the appeal development, he judged. 

Despite acknowledging local support for the seating area, the inspector concluded that removal of the rear balcony and side seating area would not undermine the future viability of the business or heritage asset. This was especially given that restrictions imposed by the pandemic had now been eased and that the council had indicated a willingness to explore acceptable alternative options.

Inspector: Paul Freer; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-034-530

Housing conversion

Incidents of antisocial behaviour experienced by a Durham resident have led an inspector to allow a partial change of use at the property. 

The appellant was a local resident of an area of Durham city centre with a high concentration of students. He had applied under class V, part 3, schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 for a flexible dual use as a C3 dwelling house and a C4 house in multiple occupation (HMO), after having had no success finding a buyer for the family home. 

The application was refused, with the proposal breaching a 10 per cent threshold set by the council for properties in use as HMOs by students in the area. But the appellant argued that noise and disturbance caused by the number of HMOs in the area had become intolerable, regularly causing his family distress and leading him to make a number of complaints to the council over recent years. The inspector accepted that these incidents amounted to antisocial behaviour and had resulted in severe personal hardship for the appellant.

The inspector found that the number of properties in use as HMOs within a 100-metre radius of the appeal site was 72.7 per cent. Therefore, it had not reached the 90 per cent threshold beyond which the council accepted that little was to be gained by restricting further conversions to preserve mixed and balanced communities. 

The council did, however, acknowledge that some circumstances may justify an exception to policy, recognising owners of family homes may find difficulty in finding a purchaser for continued use as a dwellinghouse. The appellant had not marketed the home for a full year, as required by the council’s local plan policy. However, in the inspector's view, resisting the application was unlikely to alter a community balance already heavily skewed to HMOs and would allow the appellant a reasonable chance of being able to sell his property.

Inspector: Katherine Robbie; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-034-514

Housing new build

A significant housing land shortfall has led to an 800-home scheme being approved in the Kent countryside.

There was consensus between the parties that there was a very significant shortfall of housing land, which could only be met through the release of greenfield sites given an insufficient supply of brownfield sites in the area. The inspector observed that the appeal site, on the edge of Chatham, was in a sustainable urban edge location. While the council intended to allocate large amounts of land for housing development elsewhere, there was no certainty of this given the early stage of the emerging plan, he held.

The appeal site, an area of arable farmland, was designated as an area of local landscape importance (ALLI). The main issue therefore concerned whether the landscape impacts of the proposal outweighed the benefit of providing market and affordable housing. In the inspector’s judgement, once the landscaping shown on the appellant’s masterplan reached maturity, after 15 years, the development would assimilate into the landscape and there would be no material harm to the ALLI. He was also satisfied that there would be no harm to the settings of an area of outstanding natural beauty and a country park, or to the amenity of public footpath users.

Citing the National Planning Policy Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development, the inspector concluded that the substantial benefits of the housing outweighed the scheme’s adverse impacts. However, in acknowledging strong public objection to the scheme and a local MP’s concern over the number of housing proposals in the area, he clarified that the decision did not set a precedent for other development to be approved in the ALLI.

Inspector: Daniel Hartley; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-654

A major housing scheme proposed on the edge of a Kent village has been held to contravene national policy on areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs).

The appellants proposed 374 homes and a care home on a redundant golf course, together with a new road to bypass a congested crossroads in the centre of the village. The inspector acknowledged that the scheme would provide the benefit of helping to meet an existing shortfall of housing supply in a borough constrained by AONB and green belt designations. He also held that the new road proposal would provide a further public benefit.

Assessing the impact of the scheme, the inspector acknowledged that the existing golf course was a manicured landscape quite different in character from the open countryside of the AONB. However, in his view, the appeal site retained a green and verdant character. In this location, the inspector held that the urbanising effect of the development would harm the rural character and natural beauty of the AONB, regardless of how extensive the appellant’s proposed landscape mitigation might be. 

Despite the housing shortfall in the borough, the inspector held that the tilted balance was not engaged due to the scheme’s conflict with National Planning Policy Framework policy protecting AONBs. Referring to paragraph 177 of the framework, he ruled that the substantial public benefits of the scheme were not sufficient or exceptional enough to outweigh the harm caused to the AONB, and dismissed the appeal.

Inspector: Owen Woodwards; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-639

A significant housing land shortfall has led to a 160-home scheme on an allocated site in Hertfordshire being approved.

The 7.5-hectare site at the edge of a village had been removed from the green belt and allocated for between 140 and 180 dwellings in an adopted local plan. Part of the appeal site lay within the village conservation area and the remainder formed part of its pastoral landscape setting, with policy requiring development of the site to respect these heritage assets.

The appellants proposed 160 flats in two- and three-storey blocks. Assessing the impacts of the development, the inspector found the scheme would fail to preserve the character of the conservation area and the setting of the farmhouse and other listed buildings. He assessed these impacts as being less than substantial, according to the balancing exercise required by paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

In his view, the allocation of the site for the amount of housing proposed had established the principle of the development and was therefore of critical importance. The less than substantial harm to heritage assets was outweighed by the public benefit of delivering housing to meet a very significant shortfall, he held, including the provision of 72 affordable homes. 

He ruled that the scheme was in a sustainable location and would fulfil the government’s aim that the planning system should be genuinely plan-led. 

Inspector: Matthew Nunn; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-653 

Conflict with a rural housing restraint policy has scuppered a housing scheme on the edge of a Lancashire village.  

The council argued that the proposal for 125 homes would be located adjacent to a village with very few services and ranked at the bottom of its settlement hierarchy. The proposal would breach a local plan policy limiting development outside settlement boundaries, it argued.

Citing case law in Colman v SSCLG 2013, Telford and Wrekin v SSCLG and Gladman 2016 and Eastleigh v SSCLG 2019, the appellants argued that the local plan policy restraining housing development in the open countryside created a blanket ban on development. This was inconsistent with the more flexible approach advocated by the National Planning Policy Framework, they argued.

However, the inspector noted that there was no reference in the relevant policy to the outdated policy of protecting the countryside for its own sake. He also acknowledged that it operated in tandem with another policy permitting small-scale development within defined villages and an overarching spatial strategy directing growth to sustainable settlements. 

The inspector found that the council had a robust housing land supply in place, lending support to its policy approach, and noted that housing on the scale proposed in this location was likely to generate a significant degree of car travel. Although he attached significant weight to the 44 affordable homes that would be provided, as well as the contribution of housing to community vitality, he concluded that the conflict with up-to-date development plan policy outweighed the benefits of development. 

Inspector: Jonathan Price; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-650

Strengthened national policy protection of ancient woodland has led to refusal of a 115-home scheme outside a Kent town.

A previous appeal on the site just outside Chatham had been allowed in the context of the first edition of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which required planning decisions to balance the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats against the need and benefits of proposed development. But subsequent updates to the NPPF had strengthened policy protection for such assets, with paragraph 180(c) now requiring "wholly exceptional reasons" to be demonstrated to justify developments involving the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland.

The appellants argued that the previous permission provided wholly exceptional circumstances. However, the inspector held that the status of the permission was in doubt, with an application to confirm lawful commencement pending and of limited weight as a feasible fallback. The inspector also referred to examples of "wholly exceptional" given in the NPPF, such as nationally significant infrastructure, which indicated the scale of clear public benefit expected. In her view, the housing and other benefits of the appeal proposal would not be of the same magnitude. She also noted that the borough’s housing delivery and land supply position did not trigger the tilted balance.  

Referring to standing advice issued by Natural England and the Forestry Commission, the inspector found that the scheme would harm the ancient woodland. This harm would be caused both directly and indirectly, through loss of trees, recreational pressure and habitat fragmentation, she held. In the absence of wholly exceptional reasons for allowing the scheme and a policy presumption against harm to ancient woodland in local and national policy, she dismissed the appeal. 

Inspector: E Symmons; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-034-422

A risk of apartments overheating under climate change conditions has led to the dismissal of an 82-flat scheme in east London. 

The redevelopment was proposed for a site that comprised the grounds of a former office block that had been converted into apartments and the application included 20 single-aspect flats. The main issue was whether the proposed redevelopment would provide suitably high-quality, comfortable accommodation for future occupants. In relation to outdoor private and communal amenity space, the inspector was content that the range of usable amenity spaces, together with financial contributions towards upgrading public parks, would meet policy requirements.

In relation to the single-aspect flats, the inspector noted that council policy normally sought to avoid such apartments but did allow for them in denser developments in highly accessible urban locations. He found that the scheme would meet some policy criteria by minimising the number of single-aspect dwellings and avoiding reliance on energy-intensive mechanical cooling systems. 

However, an overheating analysis provided by the appellants showed that many dwellings would be at risk of overheating under future climate change conditions, the inspector found. In the absence of an assured provision of recommended mitigation measures such as solar blinds and external louvre doors, there was no certainty that a high possibility of overheating could be avoided, he held. 

The inspector’s concerns were further heightened due to noise from a nearby main road, which he judged would encourage residents of the 16 south-facing single-aspect units to keep their windows closed. In his view, even with the tilted balance triggered by a housing shortfall in the borough, the scheme’s benefits did not outweigh the significant harm relating to the quality and comfort of accommodation for future residents.

Inspector: William Cooper; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-010-667

Harm to important local views has led to refusal of new homes on the edge of a Leicestershire market town.

The 63-home scheme was proposed on sloping fields, which the inspector held to form an important part of the town’s pastoral countryside setting, reflected in the designation of important inward-facing views and outward-facing vistas in a neighbourhood plan. She judged that the appeal proposal would be highly visible from an important viewpoint on the approach to the town and in an outward vista over the countryside, replacing a pastoral foreground with a suburban housing estate. 

Mitigation planting would not adequately screen the development along the approach road and in time would obscure part of the limited remaining views of the vista, she held. In her view, these serious impacts could not be sufficiently reduced at reserved matters stage to comply with policy and would erode the area’s distinctive character and appearance.

In dismissing the scheme, she gave full weight to conflict with relevant policies of the neighbourhood plan, finding them consistent with paragraph 174 of the National Planning Policy Framework on protection of the countryside and valued landscapes despite constraining housing provision in an area with a shortfall. She concluded that the scheme’s adverse impacts outweighed its benefits.

Inspector: Carole Dillon; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-640

The benefits of new housing have trumped landscape concerns over a 50-home scheme on the edge of a Surrey town.

The site lay within an area of great landscape value (AGLV) buffer and in the setting of an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). It had also been identified for inclusion within the AONB in a boundary review. However, after assessing the proposal against the current policy context, the inspector held that the site was visually contained and lacked intervisibility with the AONB. In her view, the proposal would not result in more than localised landscape harm.

The inspector did not agree with the council and local residents that the site had additional valued landscape status. The site met very few of the criteria for valued landscapes set by local plan policy or by the Landscape Institute’s Technical Guidance Note TGN 02/21 on assessing landscape value outside national designations, she held. The guidance, she noted, advises against overuse of identification of valued landscapes.

The council could only demonstrate a supply of deliverable housing land of around 4.25 years and a neighbourhood plan identified an acute shortage of affordable housing in the area. The parties agreed that new homes could not be delivered in the area without using greenfield land, including in the AGLV or the AONB. While the inspector acknowledged that the scheme was deficient in one- and two-bedroom market houses, in her view the low-density scheme of large market houses would be in keeping with the area’s character. Overall, she decided that policy conflicts and adverse impacts were outweighed by the benefits of providing housing.

Inspector: Helen Hockenhull; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-635

Leisure and entertainment

Harm to ancient woodland and conflict with national park policy has led to the refusal of new holiday chalets in Hampshire.

The three wooden chalets were proposed in an isolated location in a woodland clearing in the South Downs National Park. The site was in an ancient woodland and a designated site of importance for nature conservation (SINC).

The inspector found that although the visual impact of the chalets could be mitigated by proposed additional planting, this would not negate the impact of increased activity at the site. This would include overnight stays and intense recreational activity, and would result in a consequent loss of tranquillity at the site, she held. 

The inspector also judged that the introduction of structures and associated activity would both directly and indirectly harm the ancient woodland and SINC. In her view, there were doubts about the feasibility of controlling visitor movements through the woodland. The proposal would therefore conflict with local and national policy requiring wholly exceptional reasons for such harm, she held.

The woodland holiday experience proposed would accord with the second principle of national park designation to promote public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the national park, the inspector acknowledged. But she held that the proposal would conflict with local plan policy giving precedence to the first principle of national parks – that of conserving its natural beauty, wildlife, and cultural heritage. 

The small-scale tourism and rural economic benefits of the scheme did not, in her view, provide the exceptional circumstances required by policy to outweigh this conflict.

Inspector: E Symmons; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-034-516

Mixed development 

No very special circumstances have been found to support a housing and mixed-use scheme in the Kent green belt.

The appeal scheme comprised 800 homes as well as a commercial centre, a retirement complex and a sports hub on a former golf course. The council could not demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land and had accepted the need to plan for the release of green belt land to meet housing needs. However, it argued that the proposed site was not suitable in relation to existing settlements and services, and was therefore contrary to local plan policy.

The appellants maintained that the site’s location close to a railway station provided opportunities for commuting into London. However, the inspector held that the many other journeys made by future residents of the scheme would rely on private car travel, given the lack of bus services and distance to services and facilities in nearby settlements. He gave significant weight to local plan policy seeking to direct new development to existing settlements and to preserve the extent of the green belt. In his view, these policies were consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework even if technically out of date due to a five-year housing land supply shortfall.

The inspector held that the scheme was poorly located and precisely the form of development green belts were established to prevent. In his view, the proposals would represent a finger of development from London into the heart of this part of the green belt. He concluded that it was an inappropriate development that would not preserve openness and would encroach on the countryside. 

The scheme layout indicated that less than half of the site area would be developed, with the remainder laid out as public open space. However, this did not allay the inspector’s concerns over the spread of development across the whole site. 

The appellants argued that very special circumstances justified the proposal, weighing every aspect in the planning balance. However, the inspector held that very special circumstances did not exist to warrant granting permission, despite the scheme’s housing and other benefits. 

Inspector: Stephen Wilkinson; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-631

The benefits of a redevelopment scheme in north-west London have been held to outweigh its conflict with tall buildings policy.

The proposals, on the edge of a town centre, would comprehensively redevelop an underground station surface car park and train crew accommodation, with five high-rise buildings of up to 102 metres in height. The car-free development would provide some ground-floor commercial uses with 454 flats including 152 affordable homes above.

The council had resolved to grant planning permission after deciding that, apart from its height, the high-quality designed scheme would have significant benefits. The site lay within a designated opportunity and growth area already containing a number of existing and permitted tall buildings, and would support the growth and regeneration aims of the adopted and emerging development plan. Although the site fell outside of a core tall building designation in the local plan, the council was proposing to remove this in an emerging plan. The new plan would see the site come within a single tall building zone, where heights of up to 102 metres would be possible.

After calling in the application, the secretary of state agreed with his inspector’s assessment that the scheme conflicted with adopted local plan policies on building height and on the provision of family and accessible housing and outdoor spaces. However, he also agreed that this was outweighed by the locational characteristics of the scheme and its compliance with national and local design policies as well as the emerging local plan. Taking into account the development’s significant and substantial benefits, the secretary of state was satisfied that the scheme would accord with the development plan taken as a whole.

Inspector: Tom Gilbert-Wooldridge; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-687

A housing land shortfall has led to new homes being approved on an employment allocation in a Dorset market town.

The site, comprising agricultural land and a former quarry, was the only employment allocation in the town. It had been allocated for traditional employment uses by the council since 2003 and continued to be safeguarded in an emerging development plan and a recently-made neighbourhood plan. 

In addition to housing, the appellants also proposed small business units, a primary school, hotel, shops and a care home as part of the scheme. The inspector noted the majority of these uses would conflict with the allocation but considered that many would provide employment and reduce out-commuting. Any conflict with policies seeking to balance employment and housing in the town would therefore be limited, he ruled. In particular, he noted that the school and care home would offer a substantial number and variety of jobs. 

Evidence suggested that the site had been actively marketed for many years without success, the inspector held, and that there was a surplus of employment land in the wider market area. In his judgement, the vacancy of the site for nearly 20 years undermined the appropriateness of the employment allocation. Citing a housing land supply of just 3.3 years in the district as evidence of a pressing need for new homes, he decided that the scheme’s sustainability benefits outweighed any limited conflict with the development plan. 

Inspector: John Longmuir; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-010-659

Transport development

A demonstrable need for the expansion of Bristol Airport has been found to outweigh the environmental impact of the proposal.

The appellants proposed to increase the airport’s capacity from ten million to 12 million passengers a year, including through extensions to terminal buildings, a new 2,150-space multistorey car park and year-round use plus a 2,700-space extension of an existing car park. They also proposed improvements to a main road, additional airside infrastructure and changes to a cap on night flights. The application had been refused against an officer’s recommendation, amid significant local opposition to the scheme.

The inspectors acknowledged that there would be some adverse noise impacts for local residents and that part of the development would be in the green belt. However, they held that there was a demonstrable need for the scheme and that it would deliver economic benefits. In their view, the proposal was supported by national aviation policy as well as regional and local development plan policy. Taking into account a lack of alternative sites outside the green belt, they concluded that the overall benefits would clearly outweigh green belt and noise harm, and would represent very special circumstances.

Inspectors: Phillip Ware, Claire Searson, Dominic Young; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-010-636