Appeal dismissed for 135 Cheltenham homes despite lack of housing supply

Despite the Inspector's conclusion that the scheme would have helped to meet the lack of housing supply in Cheltenham, he found that this did not outweigh the harm to green belt land. The Inspector dismissed an appeal by Galliard against a previous refusal for the scheme.

The Inspector concluded (16-Pages / 184KB PDF) that Cheltenham Council could only identify housing land supply of between 1.9 and just over three years, assuming a buffer of 20% because they have under delivered on housing provision over the past few years. 

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires local planning authorities to identify housing land to provide five years worth of housing against its housing requirements. It must also have a 5% buffer of land, which is increased to 20% for authorities that have persistently failed to deliver adequate housing.

The Inspector found that the NPPF's "presumption in favour of sustainable development" did not apply, despite the Council not being able to demonstrate a five year supply of housing. This would usually result in the Council's policies being deemed out of date and trigger the presumption in favour of development.

"Where specific policies, including Green Belt policies, indicate that development should be restricted then the presumption in favour of granting permission does not apply. That is the case here," the Inspector said.

The Inspector concluded that the proposed development would constitute "inappropriate development, harmful to the Green Belt" and he attached substantial weight to the presumption against inappropriate development.

"The development would also significantly reduce the openness of the Green Belt when the most important attributes of Green Belts are their openness and permanence," the Inspector said. "The NPPF makes it clear that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt."

The Inspector found that the development would offend four out of five of the Green Belt's purposes. It would stop the Green Belt from preventing urban sprawl; would stop the Green Belt from preventing towns from merging; would prevent Green belt form safeguarding the countryside, and would represent a significant encroachment into the countryside.

"Seen as a whole, and despite attributing significant weight to the housing benefits, it is my judgement that the totality of the harm is not clearly outweighed by the other considerations," the Inspector said. "Consequently the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist and the proposed development would be contrary to local policy and the NPPF."

In his conclusions the Inspector warned local residents that, despite his decision in this case, it is "highly likely" that development outside the settlement boundary of Cheltenham, probably in the green belt, will be necessary if Cheltenham’s housing and economic development needs are to be met.

The Council had previously had its request rejected for the Secretary of State to ‘call-in’ the application for his own determination. The Inquiry was opened in March but was delayed to allow the parties time to assess its effects.

The latest inquiry resumed on 15 May and the Inspector's decision was issued yesterday.