Out-Law News 1 min. read
07 Feb 2013, 3:23 pm
The Council had refused the planning application on the grounds that the development site was located outside the defined settlement boundary of Cam set out in a saved Local Plan policy and was therefore not in a sustainable location.
The inspector noted in his decision notice (17-page / 193KB PDF) that the Council had identified the land as being suitable for development in its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.
The inspector said the inclusion suggested that the Council "sees the site as contributing to the creation of a sustainable community". He noted that this would include accessibility considerations, dismissing the Council's argument that the site was not sustainable in travel terms because the distance to the nearest primary school is 1.8km.
The inspector pointed to the fact that the Council was not able to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and noted that the saved policy was planned to apply only until 2011. As the NPPF directs that policies for housing supply cannot be considered up to date if a five year housing supply cannot be demonstrated, the NPPF sustainability policies should carry a greater weight than the policy, he said.
"The proposal would be broadly compatible with the Framework's aim of locating development in sustainable locations," the inspector said. He concluded that the limitations in respect of walking to a primary school could be partly addressed by off-site improvements.
The inspector further noted that the Council had chosen to adopt an inappropriately low estimation for its housing supply figure in a recent report. He said that this was "at odds with the objectives of the Framework to boost significantly the supply of housing, to support local policies to build a strong competitive economy and to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes".
The inspector said that the Council had a history of "persistent" under-delivery of housing and that it would therefore be appropriate to apply the NPPF's 20% buffer for supply, which enabled the Council to show a 3.98 housing supply only.
"This on its own is sufficient in the circumstances of this case to swing the balance of arguments in favour of allowing the appeal," he said.
