Inspectors dismiss appeals in Bracknell, finding visual harm and impact of large-scale developments on landscape outweigh five-year housing land supply commitments
The Planning Inspectorate has dismissed two appeals of decisions taken by Bracknell Forest Borough Council to refuse housing developments, despite the local authority being unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.
The two plans would have seen more than 220 new homes built, but planning inspectors dismissed both appeals finding that the developments would have significant harm to the appearance of the surrounding localities.
The council currently has 4.44 years' housing land supply, falling below the required supply of 5 years. In August, the council reported that it would need to deliver 344 homes to meet its five-year housing land supply target.
In cases where a council is falling short of demonstrating its five-year housing land supply, paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework is engaged and 'the tilted balance' applies.
Paragraph 11 states that plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
For decision-taking this means:
11. (d) "where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:
- the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or
- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole."
One appeal concerned a 32-home development in Warfield, Bracknell. In considering the appeal, planning inspector JP Sargent acknowledged that "in the face of the shortfall in housing land supply the scheme would be delivering an additional 32 more homes, in line with the Government's aims to boost housing delivery".
He also accepted that nearly a third of the homes would be affordable – a further factor in favour of the scheme – and that the scheme would bring economic benefits.
However, he noted: "While I recognise the presumption of the tilted balance, regard still has to be given to the Framework's need to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and ensure maintenance arrangements for drainage are in place."
He concluded: "On balance, I therefore find that the adverse effects of the scheme significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits identified. Indeed, a slightly greater shortfall in housing land supply, as implied by the appellant, would not have a material effect on my decision."
Planning inspector Philip Major came to a similar conclusion in the second appeal concerning a 197-dwelling scheme also in Warfield. He noted that the provision of housing in a situation where there is a deficit of housing land supply was of "significant weight".
Despite this, he found that "the disbenefits, in combination, are of greater weight".
He concluded: "Put shortly, this would be a development in the wrong place, divorced from the existing urban area, and without sufficient benefits to overcome the clear harms identified and the conflict with the development plan, even allowing for reduced weight to the conflict in some of the policy areas as a result of inconsistency with the NPPF or application of the tilted balance."
"Indeed, notwithstanding the 'tilted' balance it is clear to me that the adverse impact of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF as a whole."
Melissa Murphy KC, a barrister at Francis Taylor Building (FTB), appeared for the council on the first and advised on the second.
The set observed that: “The decision letters repay careful study. The council’s progress towards the adoption of a new local plan seems to have really mattered, so too the steps taken in relation to the neighbourhood plan.
“There were concerns about the locational sustainability of the schemes. But in each decision, the landscape & visual harm caused by the development seems to have been decisive, although the landscape in question was not a valued landscape nor indeed the subject of any specific designation.”
Adam Carey
