Church View West Appeal Hearing
Mr Peter Brotherton has appealed against NCC's decision to reject his application to build 5 houses on the land to the west of Church View.
The appeal was being heard by the Planning Inspectorate under the written representations procedure.
Full details on our Church View West Appeal webpage.
The Planning Inspectorate has now decided to hold an Informal Hearing.
(The Fenrother appeal was decided by an Inquiry, not a Hearing)
All comments made at application stage or already made on the appeal will be considered by the Inspector.
You can not make any further representations to the Planning Inspectorate.
Glen Sanderson (our County Councillor) wants residents to know that they can contact him if they need any further information.
Glen wants people to know that anyone can attend and hopes that, if you have the time, you will be able to.
Contact details: Glen Sanderson 07730 979 737 glen.sanderson@northumberland.gov.uk
Summary of Issues
Our unofficial summary of the issues the Inspector wants the Informal Hearing to cover is:
• evidence and assumptions of the Five Year Housing Supply report and SHLAA
• if the site is within the Green Belt according to the development plan
• (the Inspector will expect robust arguments for any departure from the development plan)
• whether or not the proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt
• its effect on openness and whether there are any very special circumstances to justify it
In the Start Letter (available below) the Inspector highlights paragraphs 2.197 to 2.37 of the Appellant's Final Comments (available below).
Informal Hearing
The public will be able to attend the Informal Hearing.
However, since the inspector has to stop to take names as people come and go, dropping in for short periods can be disruptive.
The appellant will usually give their views first, followed by the NCC, and then anyone else who wants to comment.
If you do comment, there is no need to repeat comments you have already made or points which have been covered by other participants.
For more details see the Guide to appeals by a hearing
This includes:
9.3 Before going to the hearing, if you want to see everything that the appellant and the LPA have written, you will be able to see copies of all the appeal documents at the LPA’s offices. [See Public Access Documents on this webpage]
9.4 Depending on whether you oppose or support the appeal you may wish to consult the LPA or the appellant to find out what their position will be at the hearing to help you decide whether your position can be satisfactorily represented by them.
9.5 Hearings are open to members of the public, and although you do not have a legal right to speak, the Inspector will normally allow you to do so. If you want to speak at the hearing, you need to think about what you want to say and how you want to say it. Some people prefer to make, or read out, a brief statement giving their views. If there are several people with the same views, it is a good idea for one person to speak on behalf of the others.
Timetable
NCC notify any person who was notified or consulted about the application - May 4th
Both parties give details of the case they will put forward at the hearing - June 1st
The Informal Hearing will start at 10am on Wednesday August 10th and is likely to last for two days.
The Hearing will be held in Longhorsley Village Hall.
There may be a site visit at the end of the Hearing.
If there is a site visit, the Inspector will make it clear if:
• it would be helpful to carry on the discussion on the site and so will not close the hearing until after the site visit; or
• it appears that all discussion has been completed and the hearing will be closed before going to the site.
In this circumstance there will be no further discussion of the merits of the case at the site.
Decision - the Planning Inspectorate website indicates the average time from start to decision is 23 weeks (=October 5th).
Statement of Common Ground
A Statement of Common Ground has been agreed between the two parties [See Public Access Documents on this webpage].
This shows that NCC have withdrawn reason for refusal no: 3 - potential impact on protected species.
Some extracts from the Statement of Common Ground:
6.6 At the time of submission and determination of the Application the published emerging Core Strategy was the 'Full Draft Plan' (Dec 2014).
7.9 The Final Draft Plan did not detail the proposed inset boundaries for the settlement of Longhorsley.
6.7 The Council consulted on the Core Strategy - Pre-Submission Draft Plan from 14 Oct 2015 to 25 Nov 2015.
6.9 There are unresolved objections to the detail of the policies which have not yet been tested.
6.10 The weight to be attributed to these policies is a point of disagreement between the parties.
7.2 At the date of submission of the application (July 2015) and the date of determination of the application (13 October 2015) the Published Five Year Supply of Deliverable Sites indicated ... Neither the County area nor the central delivery sub area could demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites.
7.3 The Five Year Supply of Deliverable Sites (2015-2020) was published on 14 October 2015. There are details in the document upon which agreement has not been reached.
8 Matters of disagreement and Agreement
8.1 The following are matters of disagreement:
a) The weight to be attached to the emerging policies of the Core Strategy at the date of the CounciI’s decision to refuse application 15/02463/OUT.
b) The calculation of the five year supply of deliverable housing land (2015).
c) The proposed development would be non-essential and unjustified development in the open countryside outside of the defined settlement boundary limits.
d) The proposed development would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt and no special circumstances have been demonstrated. There would be harm in terms of the impact upon the openness of the Green Belt.
Matters of Agreement
8.2 The areas of agreement are limited by the application being made in outline with all matters reserved. They include:
a. The provisions of Structure Plan Policy S5:
Policy S5 - Extension to the Green Belt
An extension to the Green Belt will extend from the existing boundary northwards to lie:
· to the west of Netherwitton, Hartburn and Belsay;
· north of Longhorsley and west of Widdrington Station, excluding the Stobswood Opencast site;
· east of Pegswood;
· west of Ashington, Guide Post, Bedlington and the A1068,· and
· east of Bothal, Hepscott, Nedderton and Hartford Bridge.
Precise boundaries, including those around settlements, should be denned in Local Plans having particular regard to the maintenance of the role of Morpeth as denned in Policy S7 and to the sequential approach in Policy S11.
b. There are not any other reasons to refuse the application other than those stated on the decision notice expect for reason three which has been withdrawn by the Council.
Statements of Case
This is our unofficial summary of NCC's and the Appellant's Statements of Case and how they address the issues the Inspector wants the Informal Hearing to cover.
Evidence and assumptions of the Five Year Housing Supply report and SHLAA
NCC Summary of Case
"NCC Response to Appellant’s Representations about Five Year Supply" on this webpage covers:
Appellant Summary of Case
Section 2 of the "Appellant Statement of Case" on this webpage covers:
1. Application of the 20% buffer
2. Liverpool method rather than the Sedgefield method
3. Deliverable sites over inflating the potential delivery
4. Contribution from small windfall sites
5. Empty homes windfall allowance
6. Small site ‘cleansed data’
1. Liverpool and Sedgefield Methods
2. Application of the 20% buffer
3. The sources of deliverable supply
4. The 2014 and 2015 SHLAAs
It concludes "The Council has addressed the disputes of the appellant individually and considers that there are no grounds to justify a change to the five year housing supply position."
It says that "On the date of determination of the Application the Council did not have a five Year housing land supply."
It also says "In the context of a site for five units, the existence or otherwise of a five year supply of deliverable land should not preclude otherwise sustainable development from taking place."
If the site is within the Green Belt according to the development plan
(The Inspector will expect robust arguments for any departure from the development plan)
NCC Summary of Case
The proposed development is outside the settlement boundary for the village as shown in both the Local Plan and Draft Core Strategy. The site lies within the Central Delivery Area that has a five year housing land supply which means full weight can be given to the settlement boundary.
The previous consultation for the Core Strategy, pre-dating the current consultation on the Major Modifications, only generated three representations to the inset map for the village. The existence of only three representations means that the precise boundaries shown on the inset map can be given significant weight to the extent that the site should be given consideration as being in the Green Belt.
The three representations are:
Appellant Summary of Case
Section 3 of the "Appellant Statement of Case" on this webpage covers whether the site is in Green Belt.
The Local Plan does not define a Green Belt Inset boundary for Longhorsley.
The development plan, comprising the structure plan and the local plan do not define a Green Belt boundary around the settlement of Longhorsley.
The Council is seeking through the preparation of the Core Strategy to define the Green Belt inset boundaries, however this work is at a comparatively early stage. The proposed inset boundary for Longhorsley was not released for public consultation until after the application was refused.
The proposal would not have an increased impact in this location as it is small in scale and would be read as part of the existing settlement, it would not detract from the character of the area.
1. The Appellant saying the Appeal Site should be included within the Green Belt Inset Boundary.
2. A resident saying another site should be included within the Green Belt Inset Boundary.
3. Longhorsley Parish Council agree with the inset boundary line exactly as shown in Appendix D figure 12.
Whether or not the proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt
its effect on openness and whether there are any very special circumstances to justify it
NCC Summary of Case
The proposal is contrary to the development plan which seeks for sustainable development to be located within defined settlements and there are not any material considerations that indicate a decision should be made otherwise.
Appellant Summary of Case
Section 4 of the "Appellant Statement of Case" on this webpage covers whether or not the proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate but the exceptions include "limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan"
The Site would offer the opportunity to provide limited infilling or limited affordable housing.
The effect of up to five dwellings in this location, would have a limited impact on openness.
Public Access Documents
Documents relating to the Informal Hearing have been posted on NCC's Public Access system - reference 15/02463/OUT
Some key documents are included here - they have been renamed and put in chronological order.
Many key documents refer to appendices - these appendices can been seen on the Public Access system.