“Build build build” - when housing tilts the balance

What this week’s Nantwich appeal tells us about weighing housing delivery in the balance.

We are but days away from the policy paper that’s going to change it all. We don’t quite know what’s in it. But we think it might just be a little bit radical. So perhaps now is the not the best time for a new post from me banging on about the current legislative framework for planning in the UK. Hostages to fortune, and all that.

So instead, how about something topical?

On 15th July, Robert Jenrick published another decision granting permission for substantial housing development. This time, the scene is Nantwich in glorious Cheshire (a market town which has been a major producer of salt for a millenium or so, some of which goes into that moreish kick in your favourite Cheshire cheese).

The scheme? 189 homes, a local centre with retail and employment space, a primary school, a new village green.

The site? 2 fields of flat agriculatural land. Outside the settlement boundary fixed by Cheshire East’s development plan. In land designated as “open countryside”. Does this sound like a familiar scenario to you?

So how did it play out? The Inspector found - inevitable with any greenfield edge-of-settlement housing proposal - conflicts with the statutory development plan left, right and centre. There were breaches of policy on development in the countryside, on protecting and enhancing the natural environment, on protecting best and most versatile agricultural land. The Secretary of State - again, inevitably - agreed.

You might be thinking the developer’s only hope in such a situation would be to win the perennial fight over Cheshire East’s housing land supply in an effort to activate the NPPF’s “tilted balance” - more of which here. But you’d be wrong.

The Secretary of State decided that Cheshire East does now have a 5 year supply of housing, including some very interesting findings for 5yhls #planoraks on the meaning of a “deliverable” housing site at [21]-[22] - more of which here.

In consequence, there was (gulp) no “presumption in favour”. No “tilted balance”. 😬. Plus, a decision at [32] that granting planning permission for the scheme would not accord with the statutory development plan taken as a whole: more of which here. Things not looking promising for our Appellant at this stage in the game.

So what came to their rescue? Housing. Both the market and affordable housing provision were given significant weight - significant enough to outweigh conflict with the development plan, and harm to the character and appearance of the area, even in a situation where the Council could demonstrate the requisite housing land supply.

This decision is a cracking example of:

• The point I made here that the statutory “presumption” in favour of the development plan means the plan is the starting point for decisions. But it certainly is not the end point.

• A really encouraging proactive streak from this Secretary of State, including the brace of decisions in April at Oxford Brookes and Cheadle Hulme where the delivery of both market and affordable housing was attributed - in the wording of the Oxford DL at [35] - “very substantial weight”.

• The fact that for all our talk of the development plan and the tilted balance (see here for some more of that), it’s still very doable - particularly in this climate of “build build build” - to get schemes over the line with neither of those powerful tools working in your favour.

In the end, the Nantwich scheme would involve only limited landscape harm. And the site was acknowledged to be in a sustainable location for more homes. Dear me, if you look closely enough, it almost looks like the planning system managing to achieve a victory for common sense.

Don’t worry, the picture isn’t all rosy. The Appellant had to wait over 2 years from their February 2018 planning inquiry for their bit of good news. Perhaps trying to bring those kinds of remarkably (and unnecessarily) long delays under control would be a fruitful place to start in reforming our planning system - along with the points Catriona Riddell was making to me here about resourcing the system properly. Sigh. I suspect that might not quite be “radical” enough for our policy paper. We’ll soon see!

Stay well, #planoraks.