Appeal By Gladman Developments Ltd Against Refusal Of Their Planning Application Ref 13/02174/Aop For 100 Homes East Of Little Horwood Road
On 26th February, the Town Council was advised of the excellent news that the above appeal had been dismissed by both the Planning Inspector – John Felgate and the Secretary of State – The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP.
Mr Felgate made the following key observations:-
- On balance therefore, I conclude that in NPPF terms the development would not constitute sustainable development.
- The development would be visually harmful to the distinctiveness of the landscape, and to the setting and character of the town itself.
Mr Felgate also fully agreed with previous inspectors who had described the Little Horwood Road as fulfilling the role of a strong defensible boundary, providing a crisp separation between the urban edge of the town and open countryside. A boundary that he made clear should be maintained and protected.
In the letter received, the following were detailed as the Secretary of State’s main reasons for proceeding with the notification of his decision and the decision itself to dismiss the appeal.
- The Secretary of State decided that it would not be appropriate to delay the decision on this case pending the outcome of legal proceedings in relation to that Plan
- He agrees that the sharp transition from town to countryside, particularly on the east of Winslow is a valued feature of the town’s character, and that the proposed development would appear as incongruous, intrusive and on the ‘wrong’ side of the most obvious and logical boundary. As such the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the development would be visually harmful to the distinctiveness of the landscape, and to the setting and character of the town itself
- The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the relationship of the site to the hamlet of Shipton, and the potential consequences in terms of ultimate coalescence with Winslow, reinforces the conclusion that the development now proposed would have an adverse effect on Winslow’s landscape setting and the character and appearance of the area
- He considers that the appeal proposal conflicts with the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan Policy 2 which designates a settlement boundary for the purposes of directing future housing and states that proposals for housing in settlement boundary will only be granted in exceptional circumstances, and conflicts with Neighbourhood Plan Policy 3 which states that proposals for housing development outside the boundary will not be supported unless they require a countryside location and maintain the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The Secretary of State considers that these policies are very important policies in the Neighbourhood Plan which seek to shape the development in Winslow and that granting planning permission would undermine the spatial strategy. For the reasons given in this decision letter, the Secretary of State does not consider that the exceptions in Policy 2 and 3 have been shown. He considers that the conflict between the appeal proposal and the Neighbourhood Plan is significant.
- Neighbourhood planning gives communities direct power to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood and deliver the sustainable development they need. Neighbourhood planning provides a powerful set of tools for local people to ensure that they get the right types of development for their community. Outside the strategic elements of the Local Plan (which is not up to date in Aylesbury Vale District), neighbourhood plans will be able to shape and direct sustainable development. The Secretary of State regards this purpose as more than a statement of aspiration. He considers that neighbourhood plans, once made, are part of the development plan and should be upheld as an effective means to shape and direct development in the neighbourhood planning area in question. It is clear that, where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted. In view of the Framework policy on neighbourhood planning, the Secretary of State accords significant planning weight to the conflict with the neighbourhood plan policies which designate a settlement boundary, even though its policies relevant to housing land supply are out of date in terms of Framework paragraph 49. He considers that this adds to the already compelling rationale to dismiss the appeal.
Yet another very clear decision supporting the community’s Neighbourhood Plan and the wishes of Winslow’s residents.
Gladman Developments Ltd’s Judicial Review Of The Winslow Neighbourhood Plan And Subsequent Developments
Late last year, Mr Justice Lewis handed down his judgement on Gladman Developments’ legal challenge to our Neighbourhood Plan and criticisms of certain aspects of the way in which Nigel McGurk examined the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan. On the six grounds of challenge, the judge was unequivocal in dismissing them all.
In his conclusion, Mr Justice Lewis stated
A neighbourhood development plan may include policies relating to the use and development of land for housing in its neighbourhood even in the absence of any development plan document setting out strategic housing policies. The examiner was therefore entitled to conclude that the draft Neighbourhood Plan satisfied the requirement in paragraph 8(2)(e) of Schedule 4B to the 1990 as it was in general conformity with such strategic policies as were contained in the development plan documents. The examiner was also entitled to conclude that the Neighbourhood Plan, which provided for 455 new dwellings in a sustainable way, did make a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development and satisfied the condition in paragraph 8(2)(d) of Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act. The examiner did have regard to national planning policy, including the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance, and the further guidance referred to in that guidance, and was entitled to conclude that it was appropriate to recommend that the Neighbourhood Plan should be submitted to a referendum. He was entitled to conclude that the strategic environmental assessment report satisfied the requirements of EU law so that the condition in paragraph 8(2)(f) of Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act was satisfied. He gave adequate, intelligible reasons for his recommendations.
In summary, therefore the examiner was entitled to recommend that the draft Neighbourhood Plan should proceed to a referendum. The Council was entitled to make the Neighbourhood Plan in the light of the vote in favour of the Neighbourhood Plan at that referendum. Consequently, the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan is lawful. This claim for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
Earlier in his judgement he commented as follows:-
Winslow Town Council (“the Town Council”) took up the opportunity offered by the Localism Act 2011 and undertook the process of preparing a neighbourhood development plan for their neighbourhood. They established a steering group of members of the council, and co-opted willing and experienced local residents onto the steering group. They undertook extensive consultation in accordance with the relevant regulations. They prepared a variety of documents over a considerable period of time. These included a consultation document, a site assessment report, a state of the town report and strategic environmental assessment scoping report and a strategic environmental assessment report. In the light of that, they prepared a draft Neighbourhood Plan. The commitment shown, and work done, by the residents of Winslow in the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan are impressive.
Unsurprisingly, Gladman Developments Ltd (GDL) sought permission of Mr Justice Lewis to challenge this judgement and, as previously reported, this was refused.
GDL then addressed a request to the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge the decision of Mr Justice Lewis. The Town Council was recently notified that the Rt Hon Lord Justice Sullivan has granted permission for the appeal to be heard, a Hearing will be arranged but probably not until the autumn, to progress this matter.
The reasons he gave for his decision were as follows:-
The judgement of Lewis J was both impressive and highly persuasive, but even if the Grounds of Appeal, as amplified in the Appellant’s Skeleton Argument do not have any real prospect of success, they are properly arguable and there is a compelling reason for granting permission to appeal: the proper interpretation of both the legislation and the national policy guidance governing the relationship between Neighbourhood Development Plans and local development plan documents raises wider issues that are of considerable public importance.
Hopefully 2015 will see an end to Gladman’s series of legal challenges and allow this community to proceed, unhindered by legal uncertainties, with progressing its Neighbourhood Plan to fruition.