INSIGHT
DiF { D than substantial”, then the subsequent balancing exercise should ignore the overarching statutory duty imposed by section 66. He gave “considerable weight” to preserving the setting of all listed buildings and noted English Heritage’s objection to the appeal for its adverse impact on the church. He also gave significant weight to the harm the proposal would cause to the landscape at most locations within 2 km. Pickles dismissed the appeal and refused planning permission.
https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/recovered-appeallane-head-farm-wigton-ref2191503-16-april-2014
HOUSING
Inspector rejects three out of four Feniton appeals (1 S U M M A R Y Four appeals were submitted against East Devon District Council’s refusal of 294 homes around Feniton near Honiton. Feniton Park Ltd appealed on a scheme comprising 32 homes, while Strategic Land Partnerships (SLP) made two appeals, the first involving 120 homes and the second involving 59. The fourth appeal was made by Wainhomes (South West) Holdings against the refusal of 83 homes. (2 C A S E D E T A I L S The appeals are known locally as the Feniton Super Inquiry. The main issues that had to be decided and which
36
T H E P L AN N E R \ M A Y 2 0 1 4
p34_37_Decisions.indd 36
DECISIONS IN FOCUS
Feniton Park Ltd’s appeal for 32 homes at Acland Park in Honiton, Devon, was allowed
were common to all three sites were the district’s housing supply and its policy implications; the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area; and whether Feniton was an appropriate location for the proposed development. (3 C O N C L U S I O N R E A C H E D The inspector, Jessica Graham, allowed Feniton Park Ltd’s appeal for 32 homes at the Acland Park site on condition that work starts within two years to tackle the shortage of housing in the district. SLP’s proposal for 120 homes was dismissed because of the scheme’s adverse impact on the character and appearance of the village and on Grade II listed buildings known as Sweethams. The inspector also noted the adverse impact on the ancient boundary between Ottery St Mary and Feniton and the loss of 5 ha of grade two agricultural land. The scheme proposed employment land but little weight was attached to this because there was no real likelihood of it being achieved. The inspector ruled SLP’s proposal for 59 homes would cause harm to the appearance of the area while offering only 25 per cent affordable housing compared with the 40 per cent required by East Devon in its local plan. Wainhomes had succeeded at an appeal in August 2012 to build 50 homes in the area. The latest appeal, which concerned 83 homes (33 of them affordable) was dismissed because of the harm they would cause to the character and appearance of the area and the loss of grade two agricultural land. The inspector also noted an increase in journeys by private car and the adverse impact on the community.
Appeal references: APP/ U1105/A/13/2191905; APP/ U1105/A/13/2197001; APP/ U1105/A/13/2197002; APP/ U1105/A/13/2200204
(4 A N A LY S I S [1] CHRIS JONES Firstly, this appeal gives weight to those seeking to show a housing supply shortfall on the basis of housing requirements set out in former RSS policies, even where those policies were based on population projections that have been shown to be optimistic. Clearly, this is only available to those areas where updated assessments have not been undertaken or where emerging policies have been insufficiently tested. Secondly, it reiterates the view of many inspectors that paragraph 49 of the NPPF applies to any out-of-date policies that are “relevant… for the supply of housing” and not just to those policies that have housing delivery as its main purpose. This includes spatial policies that direct development towards or away from particular locations. Finally, it demonstrates the broad approach that can be taken to “sustainable development”. The inspector
considers the economic, social and environmental impacts of the schemes individually and when taken together. The impact on the character and appearance of the locality appears to be the key negative weighing against all but one of the applications. Another consideration of the inspector is that the scale of the housing proposed is so significant in proportion to the scale of the existing town that the “social and cultural wellbeing of existing residents” would be harmed. Whilst this appeal decision won’t change the planning landscape, it does add to the growing list of cases that consider the application of paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF and how these should be weighed in decision making. This particular case makes clear that a lack of housing supply will not override all other planning considerations and highlights the importance of ensuring all aspects of a proposal are well-considered and wellpresented, in particular, its scale and location relative to its surroundings.
JOHN ACRES director at planning consultancy Turley. Email: john.acres@turley.co. uk. Visit www.turley.co.uk.
I M AG E | A L A M Y
28/04/2014 11:44