The inspector noted in his report (15-page / 180KB PDF) that the Council was not able to demonstrate a district-wide five year housing land supply in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The Council's own calculation of the five year housing supply came to a 5.7 year supply. However, the inspector suggested that a number of the sites included in the calculations were not deliverable under the NPPF.
The NPPF states that to be deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered within five years. The inspector noted that some of the sites the Council included did not have planning permission or had been based on potentially exaggerated sales estimates by house builders.
"Urgent action is required to address the shortfall in housing within the district and assist in meeting the needs of those who require affordable housing. The evidence before me indicates that there is a considerable local need for this type of housing within the town," the inspector said.
He said that the lack of a five-year housing supply meant that planning permission should not be withheld purely because the development site was outside the built-up area boundary identified in the Council's local plan.
The inspector also considered the loss of agricultural land the development would cause. "The proposal would entail the permanent loss of about 4.1 ha of the best and most versatile quality farmland (BMV), the bulk of which would be Grade 2 agricultural land," he said.
However, he concluded that the proposal would not entail "significant" development of BMV and said that the housing shortfall he had identified would amount to an overriding need for development on the site.
"Whilst the loss of this limited area of BMV is unfortunate, the provision of about 50 dwellings to help meet local housing needs is an important consideration," he said.
