Land at Red House Farm, Lower Outwoods Road, Burton upon … Application... · 2016. 1. 25. · Land at Red House Farm, Lower Outwoods Road, Burton upon Trent, Staffordshire Statement

Land at Red House Farm, Lower

Outwoods Road, Burton upon Trent,

Staffordshire

Statement of Case

On behalf of Barwood Strategic Land II LLP, et al

Planning Ref: P/2014/01530

January 2016

54 Hagley Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B16 8PE

Tel: 0121 456 7444

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

wendy.keach

Text Box

P/2014/01530

Appellant’s Statement of Case

Land at Red House Farm, Lower Outwoods Road, Burton upon Trent, Staffordshire

2

Contents Page

Prefix

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Background to the Application and Appeal

3.0 Planning Policy Framework

4.0 Planning Assessment

5.0 Conditions and Section 106

6.0 Summary and Conclusions

Appendices

Appendix 1: Decision Notice P/2014/01530 dated 23rd July 2015

Appendix 2: Officer Report to Planning Committee dated on 21st July 2015

Appendix 3: Plan NO239/100/Phase 2 – Context Plan showing approved Phase I Reserved Matters and

Phase II site layout

Appendix 4: Secretary of State Appeal Decision letter and Inspector’s report dated 12th November 2013

(Ref: APP/ B3410/A/13/2197299)

Appendix 5: Officer’s Report to Planning Committee date 19th January 2016 for Reserved Matters

application (Ref: P/2016/01229)

Appendix 6: List of Application Documents

Appendix 7: East Staffordshire Local Plan 2012-2031 Adoption Statement dated 15th October 2015

Appendix 8: Extracts from East Staffordshire Local Plan 2012-2031



3

Appendix 9: Outwoods Neighbourhood Plan, made August 2015

Appendix 10: Review of LVIA for East Staffordshire Borough Council by Pegasus Landscape Design, 12

February 2015 (Ref: BIR.4760)

Appendix 11: Davenham, Cheshire appeal dated 3rd September 2015 (Ref: APP/A0665/A/14/2226994)

Appendix 12: Northwich, Cheshire appeal dated 3rd September 2015 (APP/A0665/W/14/3000528)

Appendix 13: East Staffordshire Borough Council 5 Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement

Appendix 14: Staffordshire County Council’s Hearing Statement to the East Staffordshire Local Plan

examination dated 6th October 2014

Appendix 15: Letter from Staffordshire County Council dated 20th June 2014

Appendix 16: Inspector’s Report on the examination of the East Staffordshire Local Plan dated 7th October

2015

Appendix 17: Email exchange between ESBC and Staffordshire County Council Education Dept. 5th February

2015, plus letter from Alliance Planning dated 22nd January 2015 plus Heads of Terms dated 12th November

2014 and site plan. All detailing agreement reached on land for a new Primary School with Staffordshire

County Council’s Education Department

Appendix 18: Burton Mail Articles regarding Hospital car parking dated 3rd November 2015

Appendix 19: Burton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust letter to East Staffordshire Borough Council dated 4th

June 2015

Appendix 20: Burton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust letter to East Staffordshire Borough Council members

dated 15th July 2015

Appendix 21: East Staffordshire Housing Strategy 2015-2020 (January 2015)

Appendix 22: Extracts from the East Staffordshire SHMA, dated April 2014

Appendix 23: Mickleton, Gloucestershire (Appeal Ref: APP/R3650/A/14/2228762)

Appendix 24: Main Modification 29 of the Local Plan



4

Prefix

i. This Statement has been prepared by Keith Fenwick BA (Hons) MRTPI of WYG, who has been

a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute since 1991 and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree

in Town and Country Planning awarded by Bristol Polytechnic (latterly the University of the

West of England). He is a Director at the Birmingham office of WYG and has 25 years of

experience as a practicing Town Planner.

ii. In this matter, WYG are instructed by Barwood Strategic Land II LLP, Mr & Mrs R S Duckett,

Mr & Mrs R A Duckett and Mr & Mrs G Skipper. WYG (formally Alliance Planning) were

instructed in January 2014 to assist in the preparation and submission of a planning

application for a residential development and local plan promotion.

iii. Following refusal of planning permission on the 23rd July 2015, WYG were instructed to submit

this appeal by means of the Written Representations procedure.



5

1.0 Introduction

1.1 WYG (formerly Alliance Planning) are instructed by Barwood Strategic Land II LLP, Mr & Mrs R S

Duckett, Mr & Mrs R A Duckett and Mr & Mrs G Skipper’s (the Appellant) to appeal the refusal of

Planning Application Ref: P/2014/01530 which sought planning permission for the erection of up to

150 dwellings on land at Red House Farm, Lower Outwoods Road, Burton on Trent.

1.2 The full description of development proposal is:

“Outline application for the erection of up to 150 dwellings, with associated landscaping, public

open space, drainage, formation of replacement parking for Queens Hospital, associated

infrastructure, earthworks and other ancillary and enabling works, including detail of access.”

1.3 The proposals constitute sustainable residential development, and they comply with the policies of

the National Planning Policy Framework and those policies of the adopted East Staffordshire Local

Plan which support sustainable development.

1.4 Neither of the 2 Reasons for Refusal (Appendix 1) identify any harm which will be caused by the

grant of planning permission, indeed the Officer’s report to Committee in respect of the application

concludes that “the site is sustainable when assessed against the three dimensions of sustainable

development” 1

1.5 The proposed development will deliver a number of benefits for the future and existing local

community which will include:

Provision of new homes for the open market;

Provision of new affordable homes;

Provision of land for a new Primary School

Funding of £500,000 towards much needed improvements to the adjacent Hospital car

parking;

1 Officer’s Report to Planning Committee, Appendix 2, para 12.1



6

High quality designed development;

The protection and enhancement of existing landscape features and biodiversity habitats;

New Public Open Space/National Forest Tree Planting;

Improved linkages to the surrounding area; and,

New Homes Bonus of £1.06m over 6 years.

1.6 The development successfully achieves the balance of delivering much needed new homes for the

Borough, within the existing built development limits to the town2 on a site that is acknowledged to

be sustainably located and which will not have a materially adverse impact upon the area’s

landscape character.

1.7 The application was recommended for refusal by the Planning Officers to the Council’s determining

Planning Committee. Members determined to refuse planning permission in accordance with Officer

Recommendation, for 2 reasons which state;

1) “The proposed development is in the countryside and as such does not accord with Policy NE. 1

or examined Policy SP8 which seek to define which uses are appropriate in the countryside.

Thus, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of policies NE1 of the adopted plan and SP8 of

the examined Local Plan (incl. Main Modifications).

2) The location is not identified as a location for housing development in the examined Local Plan.

The granting of permission would be contrary to SP2 and SP4 of the examined Local Plan which

has reached such a stage where it can be attributed substantial weight and outweighs the

presumption in favour of sustainable development accorded by the NPPF.”

Grounds of Appeal

1.8 The Appellant submits that the refusal was perverse, given the acknowledgment that the

development proposals are sustainable and that the Appeal proposal is consistent with the

principles of sustainable development and that there are no technical ground which warrant refusal.

2 See Section 4.7 of this Statement



7

The appellant further contests that the Council have failed to identify in their Reasons for Refusal

any material harm which would be caused by the grant of planning permission.

Appeal Route

1.9 Having regard to the nature of the Appeal proposal and reasons for refusal, the Appellant is

satisfied that the planning merits of their case can be properly understood using the Written

Representations procedure.

Statement of Case

1.10 This Statement of Case has been prepared by WYG Planning and presents the Appellant’s full

appeal case. It is structured as follows;

Section 2 – Background to the Refused Application

Section 3 – Planning Policy Framework

Section 4 – Planning Assessment

Section 5 – Proposed Conditions and S106

Section 6 – Summary and Conclusions



8

2.0 BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION

2.1 Site Location and Description

2.1.1 The site is located on land at Red House Farm, Lower Outwoods Road, Burton Upon Trent and falls

within the administrative boundaries of East Staffordshire Borough Council.

2.1.2 The Site falls outside but adjacent to the currently defined settlement boundary for Burton Upon

Trent and is located within the Neighbourhood Area of Outwoods. Notably, in a real and practical

sense it lies wholly within the newly defined urban area of Burton, reflected by the consented

“Phase 1” area, which is subject to a current reserved matters application with an Officer

recommendation to grant planning permission. This ‘approved’ Phase 1 layout is shown

superimposed on the current OS Base, with the Phase II application then shown within the new

urban context (Appendix 3).

2.1.3 Currently, adjacent to the site’s north western boundary are the nearest residential properties,

located at Lower Outwoods Road, St George’s Road and St Margaret’s Road. Queens Hospital lies

to the north east of the site with the site’s eastern boundary screened by existing mature trees/

hedgerow and beyond this the A38. To the south east of the site lies Outwoods Hill Farm and

Outwoods Reservoir which screen the site’s southern boundary from a number of surrounding and

long distant viewpoints.

2.1.4 The site is located to the south of existing residential development at Lower Outwoods Road. Land

falling immediately to the south west of the Site was recently granted planning permission for the

erection of up to 250 dwellings in November 2013 by the Secretary of State (APP/

B3410/A/13/2197299) where the Secretary of State concluded that the site is in a sustainable

location for housing development (Appendix 4) (para 15). The Council deferred a decision to

grant reserved matters approval for 246 dwellings in accordance with Officer recommendation on

the 19th January 2016 at Planning Committee. The deferral related to a request for clarification on

traffic bollard detail, compliance with Neighbourhood Plan and detail on Affordable Housing

clusters. Notably, the deferral did not raise any issue of concern regarding the proposed layout. A

copy of any Decision Notice will be forwarded to the Inspectorate when issued. In the interim, the

Officer’s report recommending approval is attached at Appendix 5.



9

2.1.5 The site’s topography falls from the north to the south with the gradient increasing toward the

site’s north eastern corner.

2.1.6 There are a number of existing services and facilities which meet the day to day needs of the area

which includes Primary, Junior and Secondary Schools, hospital, sports complex, supermarket,

dental surgery, Post Office, Public Houses, public transport connections and churches that are

located within 2km of the site, thus providing what is agreed by both the principle parties to the

appeal to be a sustainable location for future housing.

2.1.7 Vehicular and pedestrian access to the existing properties is currently gained via Lower Outwoods

Road which also serves a number of residential properties located at St Margaret’s and St George’s

Road.

2.1.8 The Site is well connected to local cycle routes, in particular the National Cycle Network (NCN)

Route 54 which passes in very close proximity to the site, along the alignment of the Trent &

Mersey Canal (see Figure 9.4 of the applicant’s submitted Transport Assessment, Ref: Phil Jones

Associates, November 2014, Project 014 Version A).

2.1.9 In the wider context, the site lies some 2km from Burton Town Centre which provides access to a

range of convenience and comparison shopping goods and local employment opportunities. Beyond

this lies the settlements of Swadlincote (5.8km), Derby (17km), Lichfield (20km) and Coalville

(24km) which provide further day to day and higher order shopping needs.

2.1.10 The site is located within close proximity to existing bus stops on both Shobnall Road and Lower

Outwoods Road (Hospital). Shobnall Road is served by the no.10 bus while the Hospital is served

by the no’s 3, 9 and 19 providing access to Burton town centre and the wider areas of Swadlincote,

Ashby and Coalville.



10

2.1.11 A summary of the local bus services is set below:

2.1.12 Burton also benefits from having its own train station which is located approximately 1.5km away,

providing connections to the wider national rail network.

2.1.13 In terms of the wider strategic highway network, the A38 provides direct access to Burton Upon

Trent and the surrounding settlements. This route is considered to be the most significant transport

route within close proximity of the site and provides links to Birmingham and Derby and the A50

which is an important route linking the M6 and M1.

2.2 Planning History

2.2.1 A review of East Staffordshire Borough Council’s planning records has been undertaken and

confirmed that there is no recent planning history relating directly to the appeal site.

2.2.2 The most recent and relevant planning permission granted within the vicinity of the site relates to

the erection of up to 250 dwellings at Red House Farm (APP/ B3410/A/13/2197299) (Phase I)

which was allowed at Appeal by the Secretary of State on the 12th November 2013 (Appendix 4).

2.2.3 A reserved matters application (Ref: P/2015/01229) was submitted on 26th August 2015 for the

erection of 246 dwellings, including details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. The



11

application was recommendation for approval at Planning Committee on 19th January 2016

(Committee Report at Appendix 5) and deferred for the reasons set out at Para 2.1.4 above.

2.2.4 The Phase II planning application has had regard to the conclusions reached by the Inspector in

respect of the suitability of the site and its surrounding landscape to accommodate residential

development and was supported by a suite of technical reports. In terms of landscape impacts, the

Inspector for the Phase I concluded that ‘…that landscape impacts of this development are

remarkably limited and local in terms of their impact… Any resulting harm to the landscape must be

balanced against the benefit associated with the development’ (Appendix 5, para 5.16).

2.2.5 The Secretary of State agreed with the conclusions reached by the Inspector in respect of that

scheme’s impact upon the character and appearance of the area and confirmed ‘…the appeal

scheme would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area by introducing

new development into the countryside. However, he also agrees that the quality of the landscape

has been identified for enhancement; and that the proposal would recognise the intrinsic character

and beauty of that part of the countryside and would mitigate the effect of the proposed buildings

by the provision of areas of open space and new planting and landscaping. The Secretary of State

also agrees with the Inspector that any adverse impact needs to be balanced against the benefits

of the proposed development” (Appendix 5, Para 9: WYG Emphasis).

2.2.6 In reaching his decision on the Phase I scheme, the Secretary of State confirmed (para 15);

“As the relevant LP policies are out of date, the Secretary of State gives significant weight to the

fact that the Framework indicates that, in the absence of a 5 year housing land supply in an up-to-

date, adopted development plan, planning permission should be granted for the proposal. He is

satisfied that the appeal site is in a sustainable location for housing development, and that, as the

adverse impacts of granting planning permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh

the benefits when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole, he does not consider that

there are any material considerations of sufficient weight to justify refusing planning permission.”

2.2.7 No further historic planning applications for the site could be viewed online via the Council’s search

engine.

2.3 Appeal Proposals

2.3.1 The appeal description of development for the planning appeal is;



12




2.3.2 For the avoidance of doubt, the plans before the Inspector for determination are;

Drawing No. N0239(08)003/Rev D – Application Site Plan Phase 2

Drawing No. INCLA_N0239(03)006 – Masterplan

2.3.3 The proposals will deliver:

Up to 150 dwellings

0.44ha of Woodland Planting (20% in line with Local Plan Strategic Policy 26)

1.5ha Open Space

Replacement parking for Queen’s Hospital and £500,000 funding towards parking

improvements a the hospital

Provision of land for a new primary school

2.3.4 The layout of the proposed residential development demonstrates that the scheme could provide a

mix of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom properties across the site varying in size, type and tenure.

2.3.5 The proposed development will be served by a new access road which will be located off Belvedere

Road. The existing gated access point off Lower Outwoods Road will be retained and will serve a

small proportion (10 dwellings) of the residential development. Lower Outwoods Road will therefore

remain as a cul-de-sac and will be closed to through residential traffic associated with the Red

House Farm Phase I development. The access gate at the top of Lower Outwoods Road will be

restricted to public service vehicle use only and will be controlled by the installation of bollards, the

details of which are now sought through the Reserved Matters application for Phase I

(P/2015/01229). This will ensure the amenity of residents living at Lower Outwoods Road is

protected and ensure that the site does not become a through route for local traffic.



13

2.4 Application Process

2.4.1 The Applicant engaged in pre-application discussions with officers at East Staffordshire Borough

Council on the 11th March 2014. Meetings also took place with Members of Outwoods

Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group on 19th March 2014.

2.4.2 The Applicant’s transport consultant met with Staffordshire County Council’s Highway’s team and

the Queen’s Hospital Estate manager to discuss the access options for the site and issues related to

the overspill hospital parking.

2.4.3 Further meetings with Staffordshire County Council’s School Organisation team took place to

discuss existing education capacity within the Borough.

2.4.4 In accordance with pre-application discussions held with East Staffordshire Borough Council, the

Planning Application was submitted to East Staffordshire Borough Council on 26th November 2014.

The Authority registered the Application as valid from 11th December 2014 under the Reference

P/2014/01530. A full list of documents that comprise the application is presented at Appendix 6.

2.4.5 The application was referred to Planning Committee on 21st July 2015. The Planning Officer’s report

to Planning Committee recommended refusal. The application was refused by Committee members

and the Reasons for Refusal on the Decision Notice (Appendix 1) are:

1) “The proposed development is in the countryside and as such does not accord with

adopted Saved Policy NE 1 or examined Policy SP8 which seek to define which uses are

appropriate in the countryside. Thus, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of policies

NE1 of the adopted plan and SP8 of the examined Local Plan (incl. Main Modifications).

2) The location is not identified as a location for housing development in the examined Local

Plan. The granting of permission would be contrary to SP2 and SP4 of the examined Local

Plan which has reached such a stage where it can be attributed substantial weight and

outweighs the presumption in favour of sustainable development accorded by the NPPF.”



14

3.0 Planning Policy Framework

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) requires that proposals be

determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate

otherwise. The Development Plan comprises those Local Planning documents which have been the

subject of Examination in Public or testing through Public Inquiry, and are adopted having been

through due processes.

3.1.2 The Statutory Development Plan for the site comprises:

East Staffordshire Local Plan 2012-2031, adopted on 15th October 2015

3.1.3 At the time the planning application was determined, the Local Plan DPD 2012-2031 was in the

process of being adopted and the Development Plan consisted of the saved policies within the East

Staffordshire Local Plan 1996-2011 (2006). The Local Plan DPD 2012-2031 was adopted on 15th

October 2015 and wholly replaces the ‘saved’ policies of the 2006 Local Plan and sets out the

strategic framework for development in the Borough for the period 2012-2031 (see Development

Plan Document Adoption Statement: October 2015 at Appendix 7).

3.1.4 The relevant policies of each document are set out in turn below.

3.2 East Staffordshire Local Plan 1996-2011 (2006)

3.2.1 The saved policies within the East Staffordshire Local Plan 1996-2011 (2006) have been replaced

by the East Staffordshire Local Plan 2012-2031 since the application was determined. Reference is

made in Reason for Refusal 1 on the Decision Notice to East Staffordshire Local Plan 1996-2011

(2006) therefore this is detailed below for completeness but no longer carries any material weight.

3.2.2 Policy NE1: Development outside Development Boundaries states that outside the development

boundaries shown on the Inset Plans, planning permission will not be granted for development

unless it cannot reasonably be located within them and is either:

a) essential to the efficient working of the rural economy; or

b) development otherwise appropriate in the countryside; or



15

c) development close to an existing settlement and providing facilities for the general public or

local community which are reasonably accessible on foot, by bicycle or by public transport.

Proposals falling within one of these categories will be judged against the following criteria:

(a) The proposed development must not adversely affect the amenities enjoyed by existing land

users, including, in the case of proposals for development close to an existing settlement, the

occupiers of residential and other property within that settlement.

(b) The detailed siting of the proposed development and its associated environmental impact are

compatible with the character of the surrounding area, and safeguard nature conservation

interests.

(c) The design of the buildings, structures and materials relate satisfactorily to the proposed site

and its setting.

(d) Landscaping associated with the proposal takes into account both the immediate impact and

distant views of the development.

(e) The access roads can accommodate traffic likely to be generated by the proposed development

in terms of number, size and type of vehicles whilst meeting the needs of cyclists and pedestrians

too.

(f) The proposed development provides for adequate access for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers,

servicing and parking arrangements, and provision within the site for plant, equipment and the

storage of goods and materials.

3.2.3 It is perhaps of academic interest given the subsequent adoption of the 2012-2031 East

Staffordshire Local Plan, but the Authority had previously conceded that Policy NE1 was out of date

(and therefore of no material weight) when giving evidence to the Phase I Inquiry. This is

addressed at Para 6.9 of that Inspector’s Report to the Inquiry (Appendix 4).

3.3 East Staffordshire Local Plan 2012-2031 (extracts at Appendix 8)

3.3.1 The East Staffordshire Local Plan 2012-2031 was adopted on 15th October 2015.

3.3.2 Within the Decision Notice, reference is made to Policies SP2, SP4 and SP8 of the examined Local

Plan including Main Modifications. These have been detailed in full below. The appellant also makes

reference to Strategic Policy 6 when addressing housing in Section 4.4 below, the policy extract is

also attached at Appendix 8.



16

3.3.3 Reason for Refusal 2 on the Decision Notice relates in part to the Presumption in Favour of

Sustainable Development. Although not specifically referenced in the Decision Notice, Principle 1 of

the adopted Local Plan DPD has been included below for completeness.

3.3.4 Principle 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development states;

“When considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the

presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy

Framework. The Council will always seek to work proactively with applicants to:

find solutions which result in the approval of development proposals wherever possible; and

secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the

area.

Planning applications that accord with the policies in this Local Plan (and, where relevant, with

policies in “made” neighbourhood plans, i.e. those that have been brought into legal force by the

Council) will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date at the time of

making the decision the Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate

otherwise – taking into account whether:

any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh

the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework

taken as a whole; or

specific policies in the National Planning Policy Framework indicate that development should

be restricted.”



17

3.3.5 Strategic Policy 2: Settlement Hierarchy states that development will be directed towards the

most sustainable locations in accordance with settlement hierarchy, of which Burton upon Trent is

the highest on the settlement hierarchy “Main Towns”. The policy states “new development should

be concentrated within the settlement boundary of the Main Towns, Strategic Villages, Local

Service Villages and Rural Industrial Estates, as shown on the policies maps.”

3.3.6 Strategic Policy 4: Distribution of Housing Growth 2012 – 2031 sets out the land which is

allocated to meeting the housing provision. The second part of the policy, ‘Development

Requirement’ confirms that non-allocated (i.e. windfall) provision assigned to the Main Towns and

Tier 1 and Tier 2 settlements and will be delivered within settlement boundaries or in accordance

with a Made Neighbourhood Plan. For Burton and Uttoxter, this requirement is defined as a

minimum figure of 1,359 dwellings.

3.3.7 Strategic Policy 8: Development Outside Settlement Boundaries states that

“Development outside settlement boundaries will not be permitted unless it is:

essential to the support and viability of an existing lawful business or the creation of a

new business appropriate in the countryside in terms of type of operation, size and

impact and supported by relevant justification for a rural location; or

providing facilities for the use of the general public or local community close to an

existing settlement which is reasonably accessible on foot, by bicycle or by public

transport; or

in accordance with a ‘made’ (i.e. legally in force) Neighbourhood Plan; or

development under the Rural Exception Sites policy (see Policy 18 on Exception Sites);

or

Appropriate re-use of Rural Buildings following guidance set out in the Rural Buildings

SPD; or

infrastructure development where an overriding need for the development to be

located in the countryside can be demonstrated; or

development necessary to secure a significant improvement to the landscape or the

conservation of a feature of acknowledged importance; or

provision for renewable energy generation, of a scale and design appropriate to its

location

otherwise appropriate in the countryside



18

Proposals falling within one of these categories will be judged against the following criteria where

applicable:

The proposed development must not adversely affect the amenities enjoyed by existing

land users, including, in the case of proposals for development close to an existing

settlement, the occupiers of residential and other property within that settlement.

Proposals do not introduce considerable urban form

Proximity to settlements where there are advantages of sustainable linkages, but this

should not create unacceptable urban extensions or create the opportunity for

unacceptable backfill between the development and the urban area

The detailed siting of the proposed development and its associated environmental impact

are compatible with the character of the surrounding area,

The design of the buildings, structures and materials are visually well-related to the

proposed site and its setting with careful choice of materials, landscaping, massing of

buildings and attention to local architecture and roofscape design.

Landscaping associated with the proposal takes into account both the immediate impact

and distant views of the development.

The proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the transport and highway

network and provides adequate access for all necessary users

The need to maintain land of high agricultural value for food production

Development proposals that may affect farmsteads and their setting should be assessed using the

relevant evidence base including the farmsteads mapping and landscape characterisation.

Where major residential sites are consented and implemented outside but adjacent to the

settlement boundary they will be excluded from this policy and for the purposes of decision making

on future proposals such as extensions or replacement dwellings will be considered within the built

urban area.”

3.4 Outwoods Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2031 (made 17th August 2015)

(extracts at Appendix 9)

3.4.1 On 17th August 2015 (i.e. after the application was determined), East Staffordshire Borough

Council’s Cabinet resolved that the Outwoods Neighbourhood Plan be “made” and as a result it now

forms part of the Borough Council’s Development Plan. The appeal site is located within the



19

designated Neighbourhood Plan area and is subject to the policies contained within the

Neighbourhood Plan.

3.4.2 Policies RD1 and RD2 are specifically related to the requirements of layout and design of new

residential development. These policies seek to ensure that as applicants seek permission for

reserved matters, the community aspiration for the development will help shape the development.

3.4.3 Policy RD3 deals with the type and tenure of new housing to be delivered and aims to create a mix

of housing types, with the exception of apartments which are not considered appropriate on the

settlement edge.

3.4.4 Chapter 5 of the Neighbourhood Plan relates to Community Facilities and states that Education has

been a key issue of importance for the community. Policy CF1 supports planning applications which

ensure that new school places, at both primary and secondary school level, are provided to help

meet both existing and growing needs. Para 5.4 states that development of schools outside existing

allocations for development will be resisted by the Parish Council as it is considered inappropriate to

utilise more of the urban fringe green setting to build schools. It is noted here that this policy is

now in conflict with the more recently adopted Local Plan Policy SP10.

3.4.5 There are no policies in the Neighbourhood Plan which seek to direct spatial growth or are related

to the supply of land for housing. There is therefore no aspect of the Neighbourhood Plan which

the outline proposals could be in conflict with. There is no conflict alleged with the Neighbourhood

Plan.

3.5 Other Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012)

3.5.1 National planning policy is now embedded in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF or the

Framework).

3.5.2 The NPPF establishes that the purpose of planning is to contribute to the achievement of

sustainable development (paragraph 6) and identifies three pillars to sustainable development:

economic, social and environmental. These dimensions require the planning system to perform a

number of roles:

An economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive



20

economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right

places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and

coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure.

A social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the

supply of housing required to meet the needs of the present and future generations;

and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that

reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well being;

and

An environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and

historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use of

natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to

climate change including moving a low carbon economy.

3.5.3 At the heart of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be

seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-making (para 14) with

LPA’s approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay.

3.5.4 Framework para 8 makes it clear that these roles do not operate in isolation of each other, because

they are mutually dependant. That is, they need to be addressed together and as part of a

balancing exercise, as there are many over lapping factors to their operation. This need to address

the “planning balance”, is well illustrated in the recent “Award of Costs” letter in respect of an

appeal in Shipston on Stour (APP/J3720/A/12/2185727) where the Inspector concluded at para 10;

“At the time of the Regulatory Committee’s decision the Council failed to adequately explain why it

had not followed its officer’s advice, and failed to demonstrate how it had assessed the planning

balance. Even at appeal stage, for the reasons set out in the Appellant’s submission, evidence of

the Council’s balancing exercise has been limited. Although the balance included judgements on

character and appearance, this was only one part of the exercise, which involved much more. The

Council’s shortcomings in this respect are unreasonable.”

3.5.5 The importance of undertaking the above exercise is also highlighted within the Award of Costs

Decision for the Phase 1 scheme at Red House Farm, Burton Upon Trent

(APP/B3410/A/13/2197299) which lies adjacent to the application site and confirms.

“In the above circumstances, I find that the Council has acted unreasonably in pursuing its stance



21

that it can demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply in accordance with the Framework.

Furthermore, in reaching its decision it has placed weight inappropriately on ESLP Policy NE1, which

it has accepted is out-of-date. As such, the application should have been determined having regard

to the balancing exercise as required by paragraph 14 of the Framework when relevant policies of

the development plan are out-of-date.” (para 26).

3.5.6 In essence, the application of the balance is an exercise which seeks to understand the

disadvantages of any scheme, but then look to examine whether these disadvantages are

outweighed by the benefits/ advantages arising. It is an acknowledgement that ‘sustainable

development’ is a complex concept and that not every aspect of every scheme will be wholly

advantageous, but it allows for examination of proposals “in the round”.

3.5.7 Para 17 of the Framework establishes 12 core principles, which in summary, confirm that planning

should:

• Be plan led

• Enhance and improve places

• Drive and support sustainable economic development

• Seek and secure high quality design

• Respect the character of areas and protect the green belt

• Support transition to a low carbon economy

• Conserve and enhance the natural environment

• Encourage the use of brownfield land

• Promote mixed use developments

• Conserve heritage assets

• Maximise use of sustainable transport opportunities

• Meet social and cultural community needs.



22

3.5.8 The Core Principles of the NPPF confirm the Government’s commitment to drive and support

sustainable economic development in order to boost significantly the supply of housing and thriving

local places that the country needs. The NPPF also encourages the effective use of land (para 111).

3.5.9 Para 47 of the Framework, requires local planning authorities to “boost significantly the supply of

housing”. Local planning authorities should be able to meet the full needs for market and affordable

housing. Where there has been a persistent record of under delivery, as there has been and

continues to be in East Staffordshire, a buffer of 20% should be added to the calculation of housing

land supply. This is essential to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to

ensure choice and competition in the market for land.



23

4.0 Planning Assessment

4.1 Context

4.1.1 This appeal is notable in that neither of the 2 Reasons for Refusal identify how harm would be

caused through the grant of planning permission. Rather, the only basis for refusal is an alleged

conflict with policy. There is no explanation as to how that ‘conflict’ gives rise to planning harm.

Through the methodical analysis set out below, it is established following an examination of the key

issues in this case, that there would be no harm caused through the grant of planning permission,

that neither the Framework nor the recently adopted Local Plan seek to limit or prevent sustainable

development, that there are significant planning benefits to be gained through the grant of

planning permission, and that notwithstanding the Council’s claimed 5 year supply of housing land,

they continue to fail to deliver housing against the requirement and there is no sound basis for the

refusal of planning permission.

4.1.2 In consideration of these matters attention will be drawn throughout, to the significant areas of

agreement between the parties, most notably reflected by the very limited grounds of Refusal and

the Officer’s report to planning Committee (Appendix 5, para 12.1) which notes; “…it is concluded

that the site is sustainable when assessed against the three dimensions of sustainable development

namely, economic, social and environmental.”

4.1.3 The analysis addresses the following series of questions;

1) Is there any technical impediment to the delivery of the site?

2) Is the site in a sustainable location?

3) Does the Framework or adopted Local Plan create a ceiling on the provision of Sustainable

Development, is there any aspect of the Neighbourhood Plan which supports refusal?

4) Are the Development proposals in themselves sustainable?

5) What are the benefits of granting planning permission?

6) Do the Reasons for Refusal provide a credible basis for refusing planning permission?

7) Would any material harm be caused by the grant of planning permission?



24

4.2 Is there any technical impediment to the delivery of the site?

4.2.1 The application was made comprehensively, and whilst only submitted in Outline, was accompanied

by a full range of technical reports. These included analysis related to, Design & Access,

Arboriculture, Archaeology, Energy, Waste, Service provision, Flood Risk, Landscape and Visual

effects, Noise impact, Travel Plan, Environmental Risk, Transport impacts, Sustainability, Ecology,

Affordable Housing & Open Space. There was also an applicant Statement of Community

Involvement and Planning Statement submitted, although these went to process rather than

technical merits.

4.2.2 In respect of all of the submitted technical information, Officers concurred (as expressed through

their report to Committee) that there is no technical impediment to the site’s delivery. In the

absence of any element of the reasons for refusal seeking to take issue with the Officer findings on

these matters, it is concluded that there is agreement between the appellant and the Council that

the scheme is technically capable of delivery without impediment, subject only to the imposition of

appropriate conditions and S106 contributions which are addressed in detail in Section 5 of this

Statement.

4.2.3 Specifically, the Inspector will note that the Council sought external professional advice regarding

the applicants submitted LVIA (Appendix 10). The detail of this is addressed at paras 11.3.7 –

11.3.11 of the Officer Report to Committee (Appendix 5). The applicant’s LVIA concluded that

upon completion, landscape impacts would be minor/beneficial, and the residual visual impacts

would be negligible. Officers noted that “The Council’s landscape consultant has assessed this

scheme and suggests that it is a robust assessment and the conclusions are valid.”

4.2.4 Similarly, it is noted that Highway Considerations (addressed at paras 11.5.1 – 11.5.7 of the

Officer’s report and also Section 5.0, sub-section 4.1, Appendix 5), confirm that the County

Council as Highway Authority did not raise an objection to the proposals, with Officer’s concluding;

“The proposal therefore satisfactorily complies with the aforementioned policies and the

sustainability requirements of the NPPF.”

4.2.5 Given the apparent agreement on technical matters, no further detail is drawn out here, but the

appellant reserves the right to make additional comment should the LPA or any 3rd party, seek to

raise an issue ‘de novo’ on these grounds through the appeal process.



25

4.3 Is the site in a sustainable location?

4.3.1 The site is sustainably located. This is not apparently a matter in dispute between the appellant and

the Council, the general location of development here was also found to be sustainable by the

Secretary of State in determining the appeal into the Phase I proposals, for which Reserved Matters

approval has now been sought, and the Local Plan Inspector considered the site a ‘logical

extension’ to the Phase I land.

4.3.2 The Officer’s Committee Report concludes that; “…the site is sustainable…trips to local services and

facilities will need to be made, these can be undertaken by foot or cycle…Officers conclude that the

site is sustainable despite the gradients involved and concern over accessibility for all residents to

the site…” (para 12.2 and 12.5, pages 26 and 27 of the Committee Report, Appendix 5).

4.3.3 The Secretary of State concluded at para 15 of his decision in respect of the Phase I land, that he;

“…is satisfied that the appeal site is in a sustainable location for housing development, and that, as

the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would not significantly and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole, he does not

consider that there are any material considerations of sufficient weight to justify refusing planning

permission.” (WYG emphasis) (Appendix 4)

4.3.4 The Inspector with regard to the recent Local Plan concluded at para 108 of his report (Appendix

16) that; “…It is also recognised that several alternative sites appear to provide a logical extension

to sites already permitted, for example at Red House Farm or Harehedge Lane…” (WYG emphasis).

However, he went on to conclude that to include such sites (which to his mind appeared logical

extensions) “…would result in a considerable period of delay during which the Plan strategy would

continue to be undermined…”. That is, the Local Plan Inspector chose not to seek the appeal site’s

allocation at this time having regard to matters related to timetable, not to the planning merits or

otherwise of this specific counter proposal, which he saw as a ‘logical extension’.

4.3.5 Existing bus services are within 500m from the site located at Shobnall Road and Lower Outwoods

Road (Hospital), which will be improved further by the bus link to be delivered as part of the

adjacent Phase I residential proposals (see Section 9.2 of the Transport Assessment submitted with

application). Numerous amenities including local schools, retail, commercial, business and leisure

facilities are also located within walking distance of the site (see Section 9.1 of the Phil Jones

Associates, Transport Assessment submitted with application).



26

4.3.6 The indicative masterplan for the site has therefore accommodated this form of travel which will

increase connections to and from the Shobnall and Outwoods Area and access to Queen’s Hospital.

4.3.7 The connectivity of the site will be improved through an enhanced public right of way (see Section

9.3 of the Phil Jones Associate’s Transport Assessment submitted with application) which connects

with the surrounding permissive routes and cycle links, encouraging the use of sustainable modes

of transport in this location and increasing access to the open countryside. The public right of way

will benefit from widening and further landscaping which will connect with the permissive routes

which lead down to Burton. It is noted that the existing permissive route which runs between the

site and Burton is steep in parts and will therefore be re-aligned and re-graded to provide a gentler

route for users.



27

4.4 Does the Framework or adopted Local Plan create a ceiling on the

provision of Sustainable Development, is there any aspect of the

Neighbourhood Plan which supports refusal?

4.4.1 Para 47 of the Framework contains the injunction to local authorities to “boost significantly the

supply of housing”. Whilst the second bullet point of para 47 states that in doing this, local

authorities should “provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements”, neither

here, nor at any other place within the Framework, does it seek to limit authorities to only meeting

five year supply as a maximum target. That is, there is nothing within the Framework which states

that proposals for housing development should be refused simply because a numerical housing

target has been reached. This approach supports sustainable development even where 5 year

housing land supply is met. It is considered by the appellant to be standard planning practice, and

numerous recent appeal decisions confirm as much.

4.4.2 In a recent decision (September 2015) in Davenham, Cheshire (Appendix 11) where there was an

up to date Local Plan the Inspector noted at para 42 of his decision that “whilst the site is not

currently needed in order to ensure an adequate supply of deliverable sites, there is nothing in the

NPPF to suggest that the existence of a five years supply should be regarded as a cap on further

development…”. Similarly, in a further September 2015 Cheshire appeal (Northwich, Appendix 12)

it was noted by the Inspector at para 14 of his decision that “Before embarking on the assessment

of supply it is apposite to understand the position agreed at the inquiry. First, that a 5 year

requirement is not a maximum figure in the context of the NPPF objective to significantly boost

supply. Secondly, it is acknowledged that housing land supply calculations can never be exact”. In

both these examples there was an up to date Local Plan, the Council could demonstrate a 5 year

housing land supply and the sites were outside the defined settlement boundary. They were both

still allowed as they were found to be sustainable and would help the authority in its Framework

para 47 objectives.

4.4.3 In a further decision (Ref: APP/X1545/W/15/3003529, Para 55) in Burnham on Crouch, Essex, the

Inspector concluded “Whilst I have found that the Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply of

housing, this does not count against the scheme. Rather, I attach significant weight to its

contribution to housing even though it would provide additional supply over the minimum sought

by national policy. In doing so I have noted that Inspectors in 2 appeal decisions brought to my



28

attention by the appellant, at Hill Top Farm and Chinnor, adopted a similar approach in broadly

comparable circumstances.”

4.4.4 It is quite clear therefore, from reading the Framework taken as a whole that there is no ceiling or

cap proposed by it upon the provision of sustainable housing development.

4.4.5 The East Staffordshire Local Plan 2012-3031 provides a strategic basis for assessing the housing

requirement over the plan period. The objectively assessed housing need is established at Strategic

Policy 3 and the accompanying text 3.12-3.16, the housing trajectory is illustrated at Figure 3.1 and

para 3.49 -3.51 and Strategic Policy 6 address the issue of the release of housing and employment

land.

4.4.6 Nowhere within any of these policies and supporting text is there an intent expressed by the

Council to either cap or limit the release of housing land directly to the OAHN figure. Strategic

Policy 4 describes the Development Requirement for Burton as a “minimum” targets. Moreover, had

there been any such an attempt, this would have been in conflict with the NPPF para 47 injunction.

It is specifically noted that Strategic Policy 6 (Appendix 8) and its accompanying text in

addressing how the Authority will manage the release of housing land seek solely to deal with

issues arising from future undersupply of housing or failure to deliver associated infrastructure.

They do not seek to promote a phased or otherwise managed release of land during the plan

period, such phasing would have been open to the authority as an option to justify, if they had felt

it necessary.

4.4.7 However, in the current circumstances the Local Plan has had to use the device of a stepped

trajectory whereby the early years of the plan period have lower proposed delivery rates than have

the later years of the plan period. This reflects under delivery since 2012, and the inability of the

Council to have demonstrated a five year supply without being able to step down for the early

years. In these circumstances a phasing policy would have been difficult to justify.

4.4.8 It is of note that since the start of the plan period, even with the stepped down target of 466 dw/yr

for the period 1st April 2012 to 31st March 2018 (rising to 682dw/yr post 2018), the Council’s

delivery for the first three years of the plan period has been 270dw, 234dw, and 352dw (source:

Housing Pipeline as at 30 September 2015; Appendix 13). That is, there has not yet been a single

year the new plan period when the Council have delivered their housing requirement. This is

particularly material given the importance the Inspector at Davenham attached to the issue of



29

under provision in similar circumstances. Concluding in para 42 of this decision referred to above

(see also Appendix 11) “… given the need to deliver affordable homes in the area and the fact

that recent levels of provision have been below identified requirements, I attach significant weight

to the social and economic benefits with the proposal.”

4.4.9 It is also noted that for the first 6 months of the current year (target 466/2 = 233 dw/yr), the

Council have only delivered 202 dwellings. Attached at Appendix 13 is the Council’s latest

statement on 5YLS. Whilst, for the purpose of the appeal my client does not challenge the figures,

it is noted that by the Council’s own data, they;

a) only claim an excess over the 5 year period of some 310 dwellings. That is, it is a marginal

“oversupply” such that if any of the critical delivery assumptions fail, the Authority may be

struggling with housing land supply again;

b) by coincidence, the undersupply which has already arisen in the first 3.5 years of the plan

period at 688 dwellings is an entire year’s supply of housing land (requirement is 689 dw/yr,

see Appendix 13 the Council’s calculation is on Page 4).

4.4.10 Hence, even though a 5YLS is indicated as a paper exercise, in terms of actual delivery of built

homes on the ground ready for occupation by those in housing need, the Council are falling short

by a considerable margin. This conflicts with the clearly stated aims of the Framework para 47 to

“meet” the need and “achieve the planned supply”. That is, the Framework is focussed on realising

delivery, not simply providing a theoretical supply.

4.4.11 From an examination of the policies, the supporting text and delivery rates achieved to date, there

is no basis on which to conclude that the Local Plan provides a ceiling on the provision of

sustainable development, neither would this be justified. Indeed, the provision of additional housing

land in these circumstances with its associated affordable housing and other benefits as set out

elsewhere in the Statement, weigh significantly in favour of the grant of planning permission for a

scheme which is in all other respects agreed as sustainable by the Local Planning Authority. The

weight to be attached to the Council’s demonstration of 5 year housing land supply is limited by the

“oversupply” being marginal and by the failure to have met the plan target at any point during the

first 3.5 years of the plan period, even when the target has been stepped down, to make it easier

to achieve.



30

4.4.12 The Inspector will be aware that the Outwoods Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2031 was made in

August 2015. The Plan provides Development Management policies on transport and access,

community facilities, residential development policies and Landscape and Recreation. The Plan does

not seek to provide policies related to the supply or spatial distribution of housing and therefore

does not present any limitation or cap on the supply of housing at the appeal site.



31

4.5 Are the Development proposals in themselves sustainable?

4.5.1 It is the appellant’s understanding that there is in fact agreement between themselves and the

Council that the development proposals themselves (not just the locational aspects of the site) are

sustainable.

4.5.2 In reaching this conclusion, regard has been given to both the Officer’s report to Committee

(Appendix 5) and two Reasons for Refusal. Neither of the Reasons for Refusal raises objections on

the basis that the development is inherently unsustainable, nor that it fails to meet any technical

standard.

4.5.3 More specifically, the Officer’s report to Committee confirms at Para 1.4 notes that “It is concluded


namely economic, social and environmental. In respect of the current proposal the principal

elements of sustainability to be taken into account are: the importance of providing a supply of

housing to meet the needs of present and future generations ensuring accessibility to local

services; creating high quality built environments; protecting and enhancing the natural

environment; and safeguarding the amenities of existing communities.”

4.5.4 For the appellant, the issues of sustainability and particularly the three threads of social, economic

and environmental sustainability, were addressed in summary at paras 5.37-5.52 of the supporting

Planning Statement, and at Section 3.7 of the Design and Access Statement. These are not

repeated here, but the Inspector is invited to read them.

4.5.5 As noted in Section 4.2 above there is no technical impediment to the site’s delivery, again a matter

which is addressed in the Officer’s report to Committee. In addition to the principle of development,

Officer’s specifically addressed the issues of, Design and Impact on the Character and Appearance

of the Area, Impact on Residential Amenity, Highway Considerations, Flood Risk, Contamination,

Ecology, Affordable Housing, Education, Play Equipment, Refuse and Waste Collection and

Archaeology.

4.5.6 In every respect the appeal proposals were found to be acceptable with Officer’s concurring

variously that;

Sustainability - “…a scheme of the form proposed would be considered acceptable… a

suitable development can be achieved on this site” (11.3.12),



32

Amenity - “it is considered that the proposals satisfy accord with the sustainability

requirements of the NPPF by providing acceptable living conditions for both new and

existing residents” (11.4.4),

Highway - “…subject to conditions and Section 106 Agreement…the proposal would not

prejudice the safe and efficient use of the highway network. The proposals therefore

satisfactory complies with the aforementioned policies and sustainability requirements of

the NPPF” (11.5.7).

Drainage - “…in respect of drainage, it is considered the scheme accords with the relevant

policies and sustainability requirements of the NPPF” (11.6.4),

Biodiversity - “Subject to compliance with suggested conditions, the development should

result in a net gain for biodiversity in the area and not impact adversely on any European

protected specifies.” (10.8.3, page 22/23),

Affordable Housing - “…the applicant proposes to comply with this [affordable housing]

requirement…the affordable housing mix within the site is to be secured via the section 106

Agreement” (10.9.3),

Education Facility - “…the developer meets the requirements of the County Council in

relation to the necessary provision of education facilities linked to this development”

(11.10.3, page 23).

Play Equipment - “The site proposed to be developed with one local equipped area of

play…in accordance with the Fields Interest Guidance” (11.11.1),

Archaeology – It is noted that archaeology can be addressed through suitably worded

conditions (11.13.2).

4.5.7 Just as the applicant had sought to address the three threads of sustainability so did the Officers at

12.2-12.5 of their Committee Report concluding that, inter alia, “the development would contribute

positively tothe Government’s aim of boosting the supply of housing including affordable housing …

there are obvious [economic] benefits associated with new development”, and whilst it is noted

that the proposals would result in the loss of countryside with some landscaping impact it is

concluded that “…the benefits of the proposal outweigh this loss and landscape impact will be



33

softened over time”.

4.5.8 On the issue of the sustainability of the proposals, therefore, these have been extensively

addressed by the supporting information submitted with the application and in the Council’s own

assessment in the Officer report to Committee. It can be clearly concluded that the application

proposals themselves constitute sustainable development when assessed against the policies of the

Framework as a whole.



34

4.6 What are the benefits of granting planning permission?

4.6.1 The benefits of granting planning permission are addressed in the Planning Statement supporting

the application 5.19-5.36. As with those matters pertaining to sustainability, they are not all

repeated here, however, there are three specific benefits arising which do warrant additional

commentary. These are;

Education

Hospital Parking

Affordable Housing

Education

4.6.2 There is an acknowledged issue with the provision of education facilities within the Borough and

specifically at Burton. This was explored through the recent Local Plan process with the County

Council looking for the Authority to make positive allocations of land, but ultimately, with the Plan

Inspector being satisfied that there was sufficient flexibility within the Strategic Policy 10 to enable

sites to come forward on an ad hoc basis once identified.

4.6.3 By way of background information, the Inspector is invited to consider the County Council’s Hearing

Statement to the Local Plan examination dated 6th October 2014 attached at Appendix 14. Also, a

letter submitted by the County Council to the Borough Council dated 20th June 2014 summarising

the County Council’s concerns about education provision having regard to various capacity and site

search studies that had been undertaken (Appendix 15). Reference is also made to para 135-140

of the Inspector’s Report on the examination of the East Staffordshire Local Plan 7th October 2015

(Appendix 16).

4.6.4 In summary, the County Council’s concern is that significant new residential development has been

either planned for or consented within the Borough, and specifically within Burton on Trent without

adequate provision of education infrastructure to support its delivery. The County Council as

education authority has a statutory duty under the Education Act 1996 to meet the education needs

of its resident population. The County have specifically identified both the north and west of Burton

upon Trent to be deficient in education facilities. They have also through their extensive site

searches noted the difficulty in identifying any available or deliverable site to meet that need. As



35

part of this application/appeal, the Appellant has agreed Heads of Terms with the County Council

Education Department for the transfer of land within the Appellant’s control at a nominal cost to

meet some of the identified primary school need. Letters confirming the agreement reached, and a

plan identifying the land involved, are attached at Appendix 17. The transfer of the land is

triggered by the grant of planning permission on the Phase II land. There would therefore, be a

significant benefit arising from the grant of planning permission in helping to address the needs of

the County Council education department through the practical delivery of land for the purposes of

education. In addressing the education merits in detail therefore, the Inspector is invited to read

the County’s June 2014 letter at Appendix 15. In particular, page 2 which confirms “Given the

spatial distribution of the new housing proposals and location of the current schools sites,

Staffordshire County Council are of the view that the authorities will need to secure options for new

primary schools; one located to the north of Burton upon Trent settlement boundary, and another

to the west of the Burton upon Trent settlement boundary. It is suggested that the two authorities’

will need to jointly approach the landowners of at least two of the possible site locations in order to

determine if we can secure a solution to the infrastructure need.”

4.6.5 This concern was further considered in the County Council’s representations to the Local Plan

where they urged the Authority to identify specific land for education provision, and to recognise

that land would be required outside of settlement boundaries to meet this need. The detail of this

consideration is addressed in the County Council’s Hearing Statement to the Local Plan attached at

Appendix 14 which in summary confirms both the need for additional facilities and the problems

experienced in identifying land.

4.6.6 The Local Plan Inspector addressed these matters at the Local Plan examination and concluded in

para 140 of his report (Appendix 16) that “…it is important to ensure sufficient flexibility to avoid

precluding any suitable and accessible greenfield sites for additional schools, and a new secondary

school in particular, even those detached from settlement boundaries, given the known lack of

suitable urban sites….despite concerns that such proposals could still be constrained by the terms

of SP8 on development outside settlements, SP8 is itself adequately flexible in its criteria for

permitted them in appropriate circumstances” .

4.6.7 The appellant has sought to find a suitable mechanism to deliver the land with the County Council’s

Education Department, and conscious of the fact that it will be for the County Council to secure

their own planning permission, have agreed that it is also necessary to have a fall back position of a

financial contribution in the event that such planning permission is not forthcoming. This approach



36

was both agreed by the Borough Council and County Council, the detailed mechanism of which is

set out in the following section of this Statement, and is also addressed in para 10.10 (page 23) of

the Officer’s Report to Committee (Appendix 5) and Section 11.13.2 of the same.

4.6.8 The appellant contends that the delivery of a site for primary education is a significant and material

benefit of the scheme given the documented problems that the County Coucnil’s Education

Department have faced in addressing the acknowledged need, and is a matter which weighs very

heavily in the grant of planning permission when considering the sustainability of benefits of the

appeal proposals as part of the “social” thread of sustainability.

Hospital Car Park

4.6.9 There is a recognised local concern regarding overspill car parking from the Queen’s Hospital on

the immediately surrounding residential streets. In part this is recognised in the County Council’s

response as Highway Authority to the planning application, and was reported in the Officer’s

Committee Report (Appendix 5) at Para 11.5.2. More generally, the matter has been the subject

of recent local press articles and editorial comment (Appendix 18) where the Head of Facilities for

Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is quoted as saying “We recognise that car parking capacity

at our Queen’s site needs improving for staff, patients and visitors, and we are therefore looking at

all the options available to us to find a solution.”

4.6.10 The article dated 3rd November 2015 confirms that consideration is being given to provision of

multi-storey car parking on the site, reference was also made to the applicant’s offer to assist

funding its provision in the amount of £500,000. Editorial comment from the same date notes that

such proposals would be welcomed stating “This has been an issue for far too long, but one that,

soon, could be a thing of the past, much to the relief of many.”

4.6.11 As part of the application proposals, and in recognition of the proposed new access road removing

some of the existing Hospital site parking (for which an agreement exists with the Hospital) the

application included an area of land to create replacement new parking provision on the appeal

site. It was intended that this could be made available for staff thereby maximising the potential

visitor parking closer to the hospital main entrance. During consultation on the planning application

the Hospitals’ Trust raised objection to issues related to the replacement car parking. After further

consultation between the applicant and the Hospitals Trust, and an understanding of the Hospital’s

longer term proposals for a revised site wide parking strategy, agreement was reached with the



37

Trust which enabled them to withdraw their objection and support the application. This involved

supplementing the replacement car parking with an additional financial contribution of £500,000 to

enable the Trust to review parking arrangements across its Estate and implement an appropriate

alternative solution, in the long term interests of the Trust, its patients and visitors. This was

conveyed to the Borough Council in a letter dated 4th June 2015 (Appendix 19).

4.6.12 On the 15th July 2015 in advance of the Council’s Planning Committee the Burton Hospitals NHS

Foundation Trust Director of Human Resources, Roger Smith, wrote to Members of the Council’s

Planning Committee (Appendix 20) setting out the Trust’s support for the application proposals

noting:

“Clearly car parking for the Trust has been a significant concern and we have been actively looking

for a strategic solution to this problem. With this particular development the outcome that has been

negotiated does give us a significant opportunity to be able to achieve this in the medium term.

The aim for us all is to try and continue to improve the patient experience and also to resolve some

of the local residential parking issues that have emerged.” (WYG emphasis)

4.6.13 The provision of the replacement hospital parking and £500,000 funding to the Hospitals Trust to

help resolve a long standing local issue as part of the appeal proposals represent a very significant

planning benefit arising from the appeal scheme to which significant weight should be attached

when considering the advantages of the appeal proposals in the planning balance. The whole

hearted support from the Hospitals Trust no doubt reflects their concerns over the ability to fund

such improvements from the public purse, in the face of ever challenging NHS budgetary

constraints.

4.6.14 By way of final comment on this issue it is noted that no objection was raised by the Borough

Council or the County Council as Highway Authority, to the suggested mechanism for resolving the

Hospital’s parking concern.

Affordable Housing

4.6.15 The delivery of affordable housing is seen as a significant benefit arising from the scheme and is

wholly consistent with the Council’s adopted policy for the Borough. The appeal proposals will

provide for much-needed market and affordable housing. Not only will this address the

Government’s objectives in terms of boosting the economy and significantly boosting the supply of



38

housing, it also performs an important social function in meeting today the housing needs of the

locality.

4.6.16 The Borough Council’s Housing Strategy (Appendix 21) confirms (para 2.5) that an adequate

supply of new housing will be essential to ensure that needs can be met and that prices do not rise

such as to make housing more unaffordable. This acknowledgement that the Council’s policy is to

rely on their supply of affordable housing from new market housing emphasises the important role

of the appeal site in providing much needed affordable housing where there is an acknowledged

shortfall in delivery. It is acknowledged by the Council that other sources of public funding are not

expected to be available (with the exception of Disabled Facilities Grants).

4.6.17 The provision of social housing on site will contribute towards the high level of need identified in

the Borough, estimated to be 159 units per year (Figure 8.14 of the Strategic Housing Market

Assessment 2014) (Appendix 22). Figure 8.31 confirms a residual requirement in the plan period,

of some 1,483 affordable houses. Thus, any contribution which be made is a matter to which great

weight should be attached. The applicant is proposing 45 dwellings, being policy compliant at 30%,

be provided.

4.6.18 This is a matter to which significant weight should be attached in the planning balance; as

recognised in at Mickleton, Gloucestershire (Appeal Ref: APP/R3650/A/14/22231115 (Appendix

23). Para 62 of the decision states “I have found that a 5-year supply of deliverable housing land is

likely to exist, given the level of ‘objectively assessed housing need’ that I find likely to suffice.

Even so, I consider that the provision of some 45 units (50%) as affordable dwellings would make

an important contribution to addressing the ‘affordability gap’ evident in the District… As the

proposal would represent sustainable development in a reasonably sustainable place, and as its few

adverse impacts would be clearly outweighed by the many benefits of the scheme, I conclude that

this appeal should succeed in accordance with the advice in the Framework, subject to the

conditions listed in the attached schedule.”



39

4.7 Do the Reasons for Refusal provide a credible basis for refusing planning

permission?

4.7.1 Within this section of the Statement consideration is given to the specific policy objections raised

within the two reasons for refusal notwithstanding the fact that no broader harm is alleged to arise

as a result of those objections.

4.7.2 Starting first with Policy NE1 of the 2006 Local Plan, this is now a matter only of historic interest,

because upon adoption of the 2012-2031 Local Plan, the saved policies of the 2006 Local Plan were

all superceded. This is confirmed by the Council’s Adoption Statement dated 15th October 2015

(Appendix 7). In any event, Policy NE1 was a policy for the supply of housing, which was a matter

as confirmed by the Inspector considering the Phase I appeal and noted in para 3.2.3 above, the

Council agreed at the Phase I Inquiry was out of date. It was therefore a surprise that the Council

continued to seek to rely upon it in Reason for Refusal 1 in this application. Given that the plan has

now been superceded, however, it is assumed that it will be common ground between the

appellant and the Council that this policy is no longer material to the determination of this appeal.

4.7.3 Strategic Policy 8 deals with development outside settlement boundaries. It is acknowledged that,

notwithstanding the representations which the appellant made through the Local Plan process to

the redrawing of the settlement boundary to go around the outer edge of the Phase I land (and

have enclosed the land within the new settlement boundary), the Local Plan Inspector chose to

allow the Council to maintain the boundary along its current alignment. This was notwithstanding

his verbal observations that it would have been logical to reflect the new settlement boundary in

real terms.

4.7.4 As noted above, the Inspector whilst viewing this appeal site as a ‘logical extension’ to the Phase I

permission, and being a site which will wholly fall within the new urban boundary, did not as a

matter of fact, find that the issue was critical to the soundness of the whole local plan. The

boundary therefore remains the same as it did at the time of the 2006 Local Plan ignoring the

effect of more recent approvals and development.

4.7.5 However, the Authority did acknowledge through the Local Pan process, that the consequence of

their not redrawing the boundary around the outer edge of the Phase I application was that any

application for minor householder works on the Phase I site, would fall to be considered as



40

development within the open countryside, against which there would have been an ‘in principle’

objection under Policy SP8.

4.7.6 Rather than redraw the settlement boundary limit however, the Council instead through Main

Modification 29 of the Local Plan (Appendix 24) inserted a clause to Policy SP8 in the following

terms “Where major residential sites are consented and implemented outside but adjacent to the

settlement boundary they will be excluded from this policy and for the purposes of decision making

on future proposals such as extensions or replacement dwellings will be considered within the built

urban area.” (WYG emphasis)

4.7.7 It is difficult to escape the conjecture that this convoluted policy response, rather than simply

recognising the new settlement boundary for Burton formed by the Red House Farm Phase I

Secretary of State approval and re-drawing the settlement boundary, was a means of avoiding an

acknowledgment that in every sense the appeal site forms part of the urban settlement of Burton.

Once the Phase I proposals are implemented the appeal site will be seen in a settlement context

which is neither “open” nor “countryside”. Attached at Appendix 3 is a plan which demonstrates

the relationship of the appeal site as it will sit upon implementation of the Phase 1 development, it

clearly illustrates the urban setting and context that the site possesses.

4.7.8 This is explicitly recognised within both the submitted LVIA (see para 8.2-8.3 for example where

the site is described as lying within the existing settlement/built area), and the Council’s own

consultant’s review (Pegasus Landscape Design, 12 February 2015 Ref: BIR.4760) of the LVIA in

which they confirm that the applicant’s description of the application site and surroundings is

thorough and correct (Para 4.2), and also their Para 8.6 where they confirm that the site

demonstrates a “relative degree of separation between the main site and the countryside to the

west”, along with acknowledging the impact of “the urbanised influence of its [the site’s] immediate

setting; and also the future baseline scenario which would see Phase 1 create a residential edge

along the top of the ridge line” (Appendix 16). Finally, the reality of the site setting is implicitly

acknowledged in the summary conclusions reached within the Officer’s Report to Committee (Para

11.3.10 – 11, Appendix 5) where it is accepted that the appellant’s submissions addressing its

urban setting in the LVIA, provide “a robust assessment and the conclusions are valid.”

4.7.9 The Council have, therefore, created a policy position where peculiarly the Phase I development will

be treated in policy terms through Policy SP8 as being “within the built urban area”, but land wholly

enclosed by it and between it and the Town more generally is treated as open countryside, this



41

notwithstanding the Council’s own landscape analysis which confirms the site’s urban influence and

residential setting. This seems to be a confused policy response to an application which the

Council’s own Officer’s acknowledge constitutes sustainable development, and is a conclusion which

no part of the Reasons for Refusal contradict.

4.7.10 Strategic Policy 2 confirms that development will be directed towards the most sustainable locations

in accordance with a settlement hierarchy which Burton upon Trent sits atop. There is nothing, per

se, within this policy proposition that the appeal proposals conflict with. The Site falls squarely

within the urban context of Burton upon Trent, and Burton is at the top of the settlement hierarchy.

The application site is acknowledged by the Council as being a sustainable location and was

similarly concluded to be a sustainable site in the Secretary of State’s assessment of the Phase 1

proposals. The sole “conflict”, which arose is the degree to which the site is viewed as falling within

the urban settlement. Whilst as a matter of fact, the Site falls beyond the settlement boundary as

defined by the Local Plan, in the context of the merits of the appeal when considered against the

material considerations of the Framework as a whole, then the weight to be attached to that part

Strategic Policy 2 is considered minimal, the more important element being that the proposals

comply with the clear thrust of the Settlement Hierarchy being on land within the urban settlement

of Burton, and Burton being the main focus for new development within the Borough.

4.7.11 Strategic Policy 4 confirms that in addition to the allocated sites, the Council need to identify a

minimum requirement of 1,359 dwellings within the Main Towns of Burton and Uttoxeter. Again,

as with Strategic Policy 2, the only alleged conflict with this specific aspect of the appeal proposals

is whether or not the site falls within the defined settlement boundary. That is, there is no alleged

breach or conflict with the housing requirement number, nor is it alleged that the grant of consent

would somehow undermine the distribution strategy, it is simply a “technical” breach related to

whether the appeal site is viewed as forming part of Burton urban area, or the open countryside.

For the reasons set out in relation to SP2 above, the weight to be attached to this conflict should

be minimal, notwithstanding the recent adoption of the Local Plan.



42

4.8 Would any material harm be caused by the grant of planning permission?

4.8.1 As noted throughout this statement, the Council’s reasons for refusal in this case are weak because

they fail to identify any single element of planning harm that would arise through the grant of

planning permission.

4.8.2 The appellant acknowledges that with both the recently adopted Local Plan and the Council’s

position on 5 year housing land supply, the presumption in favour of sustainable development

contained in Para 14 of the Framework is not engaged. However, the Framework as a whole,

remains a material consideration and as para 11 confirms, material considerations may indicate that

applications should not be determined in accordance with the development plan. The two recent

Cheshire appeals (Appendix 11 and 12) are both examples where development which has been

demonstrated as sustainable and where there was an absence of material harm, have been allowed

(notwithstanding an up to date Local Plan and demonstrable 5 year housing land supply) because

the material considerations raised by the Framework support the delivery of sustainable

development such that those considerations outweigh any development plan conflict. Specifically

at Northwich (Appendix 12) the Inspector concluded at Para 68 of his decision “In my judgement

none of these matters establishes that there would be harm which would be significant or

demonstrably outweigh the benefits, the most significant of which include housing provision,

affordable housing provision, and improvement to the highway network. The material

considerations in support of the development are such that they outweigh any development plan

conflict. It follows that the appeal should succeed.”

4.8.3 In this appeal, the material benefits in granting permission are significant and are addressed

extensively in the application and appeal documentation. Key elements of which include provision

of market housing (against an entire year’s under delivery in the first 3.5 years of the plan period),

provision of affordable housing, provision of land for a new primary school, provision of funding to

the Queen’s Hospital’s issues relating to car parking, and an agreed net gain in biodiversity and the

documented economic benefits.

4.8.4 There is a significant failure on the part of the Council to have identified any harm which would

arise from the grant of planning in their Reasons for Refusal. Given the substantial agreement

reached on the technical planning and sustainability merits of the application/appeal, which is fairly

reflected in the Officer’s report to Planning Committee, it is unsurprising that no material harm

could be identified.



43

5.0 Planning Conditions and Obligations

Planning Conditions

5.1 As set out in the Planning Statement accompanying the application, a number of matters would be

expected to be conditioned as part of any outline planning approval. The appellant has proposed

the following conditions:

1. Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called ‘the reserved

matters’) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before

any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority

not later than three years from the date of this permission.

3. The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than two years from the date of

approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

4. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the principles of the

Design and Access Statement (Ref: INCLA_N0239(100)001) and the approved plans.

5. No development shall take place until details of any phasing of the development hereby

permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The

development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

6. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until samples and details of all

external materials and finishes for that phase (including those for any walls, roofs, windows,

doors, parapets and chimneys) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local

planning authority at reserved matters stage. The development shall be carried in accordance

with the approved materials and details.

7. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until details of boundary

treatments, including materials, finishes, heights and sections (where there are changes in

topography) for that phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local

planning authority. The boundary treatment shall be provided in accordance with the approved

details prior to the first occupation/use of the part of the development to which it relates.

8. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until a scheme for the disposal

of foul and surface waters and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological impacts

for that phase of development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local

planning authority. The scheme shall include details of how surface water run-off shall not



44

exceed run-off from an undeveloped site, Sustainable Urban Drainage systems for storm water

management, compensatory flood storage on site, and details of how the scheme shall be

managed and maintained after completion. The development shall be carried out in

accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings

hereby permitted.

9. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until details of an open space

strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The

open space strategy shall include a short term maintenance management plan for all areas of

open space; all materials to be used in hard landscaping and all fencing and walling. The open

space strategy shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved phasing scheme

and shall thereafter not be used for any purpose other than as stated.

10. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until a ‘Site Waste

Management Plan’ for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local

planning authority. The Site Waste Management Plan shall include an implementation

programme and shall be implemented as approved.

11. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place and no site works relating to

that phase shall be carried out until details of all slab levels and any regarding of the site have

been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority at reserved matters

stage. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

12. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until a contaminated land

assessment, to include the investigation of gas migration, and associated remedial strategy

together with an implementation programme have been submitted to and approved in writing

by the local planning authority. The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk study

that shall detail the history of the site uses and a site investigation strategy based on the

relevant information discovered by the desk study. The strategy shall be approved in writing

by the local planning authority prior to investigations commencing on site. Any site

investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, shall be

carried out by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a

Quality Assured sampling and analysis methodology. A site investigation report detailing all

investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analysis, risk assessment

to any receptors and a remediation strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by

the local planning authority prior to any remediation works commencing on the site.

Remediation works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy and under a

quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the approved methodology and best



45

practice guidance. If during the works contamination is encountered which has not previously

been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and a remediation

scheme and implementation programme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the

local planning authority. Remediation works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with

the approved scheme. Upon completion of the works, a closure report shall be submitted to

and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The closure report shall include details

of the remediation works and quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been

carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology; details of any post-remedial

sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria; and details

of what waste materials have been removed from the site.

13. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until a Landscape Management

Plan, indicating a scheme for the long-term management of open space, green infrastructure

and planting within the public realm and details of biodiversity management has been

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The open space, green

infrastructure and planting shall thereafter be managed in accordance with the approved

Landscape Management Plan.

14. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until a scheme for the

protection of trees and hedges to be retained in the details of landscaping approved at

reserved matters stage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning

authority. The scheme shall be carried out as approved.

15. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place, including any works of

demolition, until a Construction Method Statement for that phase of the development has been

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved Statement

shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for that phase of the development. The

Statement shall provide for the control of construction noise; the parking of vehicles of site

operatives and visitors; loading and unloading of plant and materials; wheel washing facilities;

measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; the times of working

and deliveries during construction and an implementation programme.

16. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until details of all road

construction, street lighting and drainage, including longitudinal sections and an

implementation programme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local

planning authority. The development shall be carried in accordance with the approved details.

17. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until a Noise Impact

Assessment, together with details of any noise mitigation measures and an implementation



46

programme, for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local

planning authority. The mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the

approved details and retained for the life of the development.

18. No development hereby permitted shall take place until a detailed mitigation and monitoring

strategy for great crested newts within the site has been submitted to and approved in writing

by the local planning authority. The mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance

with the approved strategy and retained for the life of the development.

19. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until details of a scheme to

provide vehicular access to the development have been submitted to and approved in writing

by the local planning authority at reserved matters stage. The scheme shall prevent vehicular

access to the development from Reservoir Road apart from by public service and emergency

vehicles. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the

development is first occupied and retained for the life of the development.

20. Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling to which it relates, accesses, parking and turning

areas for that dwelling shall be provided in a bound material in accordance with details that

shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority at

reserved matters stage. The bound material shall have a high degree of porosity to reduce the

amount of surface run-off. The accesses, parking and turning areas shall thereafter be made

available at all times for these purposes.

21. The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with the

recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessment by M-EC Report Ref: 20939/06-14/3653 Rev

A, dated November 2014, or any subsequent Flood Risk Assessment that has first been

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

22. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the details of landscaping approved at reserved

matters stage shall be carried out in accordance with a programme of works that shall have

been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any trees or plants

which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or

become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with

others of similar size and species unless the local planning authority gives written consent to

any variation.

23. The reserved matters shall include a Transport Master Plan that shall be submitted to and

approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Transport Master Plan shall include

details of a movement framework; connections to the surrounding areas for all modes of

transport; public transport route strategy, including a timetable for implementation and the



47

infrastructure; street layout, including measures to restrain the speed of vehicles to 20mph;

and a parking strategy, including the provision of secure cycle parking facilities for each

dwelling. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Transport Master

Plan.

Planning Obligations

5.2 The Appellant is willing to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to secure a number of obligations

relevant to make the development acceptable. The Heads of Terms for the Section 106

Agreement are set out in the Planning Committee report for the refused application (ref:

P/2014/01530), they are repeated in Table 1 below:

Table 1: S106 Heads of Terms

Item Planning Obligation Cost (where

applicable)

Education £600,000 for primary and £420,000 for

secondary and 6th Form (not including the cost

of acquiring the land)

OR the following

Transfer of land of 1 hectare for the purposes

of a new primary school and a financial

contribution of £420,000 towards additional

secondary school places.

Dependent on option.

Affordable Housing The application proposes 45 affordable homes

which is 30% of 150 homes. The applicant

recognises that the whole 30% can be

provided on site

OR, they can elect in line with policy to

provide,

Dependant on option

chosen by Appellant



48

15% on site and a commuted sum of

£1,047,081.

Open Space A total of 1.81 hectares on site or an off site

contribution.

1.4ha to be provided on

site.

Refuse Containers Contribution to provide refuse storage

containers at £75 per dwelling

Or provision of appropriate external storage

containers for refuse and recycling collection

(in accordance with the Council’s specification).

£11,250

Highways Capital contribution of £124,500 Burton

Integrated Transport Strategy (reserved for

Outwoods, Horninglow and Eton wards).

Residential Travel monitoring £6,300

Residents Parking £50,000

Total Contribution

£180,800

The NHS Burton

Trusts

£500,000 to facilitate the car park

improvements, of which £300,000 are to be

paid prior to commencement of the works.

£100,000 upon completion of the 25th House

and the remaining £100,000 on completion of

the 50th House.

£500,000

The National Forest

Company

20% of the site area to be for woodland

planting and landscaping which would equate

to 1.28ha.

1.5ha of open space should also be

demonstrated.

1.64ha to be provided

on site including

proposed pond.



49

5.3 The £500,000 proposed for the Burton NHS Trusts is to assist in the delivery of a long term

strategic site wide solution to parking issues at the Queens Hospital, which are a matter of long

standing concern in the local area. In these financially straitened time, the level of funding offered

by the Appellant is not readily accessible to the Trust from the public purse and is a benefit to

which great importance has been attached by the Trust (Appendix 19).

5.4 There is also a long standing requirement of the Derbyshire County Council Education Team to find

a new site for a Primary School on the west side of Burton. The Appellant has offered to gift the

County Education Department 1ha of land to the rear of Reservoir Road (identified on the Plan at

Appendix 17) for the delivery of a new Primary School.

5.5 The Appellant will be submitting a Unilateral Undertaking for consideration by the Inspector as part

of this Appeal. It will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate within 7 weeks of the appeal start

date, in accordance with the requirement set out at Annex N, paragraph N.2.1 of the ‘Procedural

Guide: Planning appeals – England’ published by The Planning Inspectorate and dated 31st July

2015. The appellant will also provide their own CIL Compliance Statement at this time.



50

6.0 Summary and Conclusions

6.1 Summary

6.1.1 This is an appeal into the refusal of planning permission for;




6.1.2 The site is located on land at Red House Farm, Lower Outwoods Road, Burton Upon Trent and falls

within the administrative boundaries of East Staffordshire Borough Council.

6.1.3 There are two reasons for refusal;

1. “The proposed development is in the countryside and as such does not accord with Policy NE. 1

or examined Policy SP8 which seek to define which uses are appropriate in the countryside.

Thus, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of policies NE1 of the adopted plan and SP8 of

the examined Local Plan (incl. Main Modifications).

2. The location is not identified as a location for housing development in the examined Local Plan.

The granting of permission would be contrary to SP2 and SP4 of the examined Local Plan which

has reached such a stage where it can be attributed substantial weight and outweighs the

presumption in favour of sustainable development accorded by the NPPF.”

6.1.4 The Appellant submits that the refusal was perverse, given the acknowledgment that the

development proposals are sustainable and that the Appeal proposal is consistent with the

principles of sustainable development and that there are no technical ground which warrant refusal.

The appellant further contests that the Council have failed to identify in their Reasons for Refusal

any material harm which would be caused by the grant of planning permission.

6.1.5 The Site falls outside but adjacent to the currently defined settlement boundary for Burton Upon

Trent and is located within the Neighbourhood Area of Outwoods. Notably, in a real and practical

sense it lies wholly within the newly defined urban area of Burton, reflected by the consented

(Inspector’s Report and Secretary of State Decision Letter at Appendix 4) “Phase 1” area, which is

subject to a current reserved matters application with a recommendation to grant planning



51

permission. This Phase 1 layout is shown superimposed on the current OS Base, with the Phase II

application then shown within the new urban context (Appendix 3). That plan illustrates how the

appeal site will sit within a wholly urban context when the Phase I approved Reserved Matters are

built out.

6.1.6 The Site is further described including its connectivity to local facilities and services, in Section 2 of

this Statement of Case.

Policy

6.1.7 Whilst the Reasons for Refusal refer to Policy NE1 of the then adopted East Staffordshire Local Plan

1996-2011, those saved policies have since been replaced by the East Staffordshire Local Plan

2012-2031 and no longer carry any weight.

6.1.8 The East Staffordshire Local Plan 2012-2031 was adopted on 15th October 2015. It is agreed that

the policy reference in the Reasons for Refusal to the then emerging Local Plan are correct and

carry forward to the now adopted Local Plan as Development Plan Policy.

6.1.9 The Reasons for Refusal do not identify any material harm that would arise by virtue of the conflict

noted with Policies SP2, SP4 or SP8. Those three policies relate to Settlement Hierarchy,

Distribution of Housing Growth and Development outside the Settlement Boundary.

6.1.10 There is a “made” Neighbourhood Plan covering the appeal site; the Outwoods Neighbourhood Plan

2014-2031, which was made in August 2015. There are no policies in the Neighbourhood Plan

which seek to direct spatial growth or are related to the supply of land for housing. There is

therefore no aspect of the Neighbourhood Plan which the outline proposals could be in conflict

with. There is no conflict alleged with the Neighbourhood Plan.

6.1.11 The NPPF is a material consideration in the determination of the appeal. Paragraphs 6-8 which

address how planning should seek to achieve the 3 threads of sustainable development are

referenced. Para 47 and its injunction to local authorities to boost significantly the supply of

housing is also deemed relevant, as is its focus on achieving the planned supply.



52

Planning Assessment

6.1.12 This appeal is notable in that neither of the 2 Reasons for Refusal identify how harm would be

caused through the grant of planning permission. Rather, the only basis for refusal is an alleged

conflict with policy. There is no explanation as to how that ‘conflict’ gives rise to planning harm.

6.1.13 Our analysis of the planning issues addresses the following series of questions;

1. Is there any technical impediment to the delivery of the site?

2. Is the site in a sustainable location?

3. Does the Framework or adopted Local Plan create a ceiling on the provision of Sustainable

Development, is there any aspect of the Neighbourhood Plan which supports refusal?

4. Are the Development proposals in themselves sustainable?

5. What are the benefits of granting planning permission?

6. Do the Reasons for Refusal provide a credible basis for refusing planning permission?

7. Would any material harm be caused by the grant of planning permission?

8. Is there any technical impediment to the delivery of the site?

1) Is there any technical impediment to the delivery of the site?

6.1.14 The application was made comprehensively, and whilst only submitted in Outline, was accompanied

by a full range of technical reports. These included analysis related to, Design & Access,

Arboriculture, Archaeology, Energy, Waste, Service provision, Flood Risk, Landscape and Visual

effects, Noise impact, Travel Plan, Environmental Risk, Transport impacts, Sustainability, Ecology,

Affordable Housing & Open Space. There was also an applicant Statement of Community

Involvement and Planning Statement submitted, although these went to process rather than

technical merits.

6.1.15 In respect of all of the submitted technical information, Officers concurred (as expressed through

their report to Committee) that there is no technical impediment to the site’s delivery. In the

absence of any element of the reasons for refusal seeking to take issue with the Officer findings on



53

these matters, it is concluded that there is agreement between the appellant and the Council that

the scheme is technically capable of delivery without impediment, subject only to the imposition of

appropriate conditions and S106 contributions.

2) Is the site in a sustainable location?

6.1.16 The site is sustainably located. This is not apparently a matter in dispute between the appellant and

the Council, the general location of development here was also found to be sustainable by the

Secretary of State in determining the appeal into the Phase I proposals, for which Reserved Matters

approval has now been resolved to be granted. The Local Plan Inspector considered the site a

‘logical extension’ to the Phase I land.

3) Does the Framework or adopted Local Plan create a ceiling on the provision of

Sustainable Development, is there any aspect of the Neighbourhood Plan which

supports refusal?

6.1.17 Para 47 of the Framework contains the injunction to local authorities to “boost significantly the

supply of housing”. Whilst the second bullet point of para 47 states that in doing this, local

authorities should “provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements”, neither

here, nor at any other place within the Framework, does it seek to limit authorities to only meeting

five year supply as a maximum target. That is, there is nothing within the Framework which states

that proposals for housing development should be refused simply because a numerical housing

target has been reached; there is no ceiling on sustainable development. This approach supports

sustainable development even where 5 year housing land supply is met. Such an application is

considered by the appellant to be standard planning practice, and numerous recent appeal

decisions confirm as much.

6.1.18 It is quite clear therefore, from reading the Framework taken as a whole that there is no ceiling or

cap proposed by it upon the provision of sustainable housing development.

6.1.19 From an examination of the Local Plan policies, the supporting text and housing delivery rates

achieved to date, there is no basis on which to conclude that the Local Plan provides a ceiling on

the provision of sustainable development, neither would this be justified. Indeed, the provision of

additional housing land in these circumstances with its associated affordable housing and other

benefits as set out elsewhere in the Statement, weigh significantly in favour of the grant of

planning permission for a scheme which is in all other respects agreed as sustainable by the Local



54

Planning Authority. The weight to be attached to the Council’s demonstration of 5 year housing

land supply is limited by the “oversupply” being marginal and by the failure of the Council, even on

their own figures, to have met the plan target at any point during the first 3.5 years of the plan

period, even when the target has been stepped down, to make it easier to achieve.

4) Are the Development proposals in themselves sustainable?

6.1.20 It is the appellant’s understanding that there is in fact agreement between themselves and the

Council that the development proposals themselves (not just the locational aspects of the site) are

sustainable.

6.1.21 In reaching this conclusion, regard has been given to both the Officer’s report to Committee

(Appendix 5) and the two Reasons for Refusal. Neither of the Reasons for Refusal raises

objections on the basis that the development is inherently unsustainable, nor that it fails to meet

any technical standard.

6.1.22 More specifically, the Officer’s report to Committee confirms at Para 1.4 notes that “It is concluded


namely economic, social and environmental. In respect of the current proposal the principal

elements of sustainability to be taken into account are: the importance of providing a supply of

housing to meet the needs of present and future generations ensuring accessibility to local

services; creating high quality built environments; protecting and enhancing the natural

environment; and safeguarding the amenities of existing communities.”

6.1.23 Just as the applicant had sought to address the three threads of sustainability so did the Officers at

12.2-12.5 of their Committee Report concluding that, inter alia, “the development would contribute

positively the Government’s aim of boosting the supply of housing including affordable housing …

there are obvious [economic] benefits associated with new development”, and whilst it is noted

that the proposals would result in the loss of countryside with some landscaping impact it is

conclude that “…the benefits of the proposal outweigh this loss and landscape impact will be

softened over time”.

6.1.24 On the issue of the sustainability of the proposals, therefore, it is clearly concluded that the

application proposals themselves constitute sustainable development when assessed against the

policies of the Framework as a whole.



55

5) What are the benefits of granting planning permission?

6.1.25 The benefits of granting planning permission are addressed in the Planning Statement supporting

the application (paras 5.19-5.36). Three specific benefits are;

Education

Hospital Parking

Affordable Housing

6.1.26 The appellant contends that the delivery of a site for primary education is a significant and material

benefit of the scheme given the documented problems that the County Council’s Education

Department have faced in addressing the acknowledged need, and is a matter which weighs very

heavily in the grant of planning permission when considering the sustainability of benefits of the

appeal proposals as part of the “social” thread of sustainability

6.1.27 There is a recognised local concern regarding overspill car parking from the Queen’s Hospital on

the immediately surrounding residential streets. In part this is recognised in the County Council’s

response as Highway Authority to the planning application, and was reported in the Officer’s

Committee Report (Appendix 5) at Para 11.5.2. More generally, the matter has been the subject

of recent local press articles and editorial comment (Appendix 18) where the Head of Facilities for

Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is quoted as saying “We recognise that car parking capacity

at our Queen’s site needs improving for staff, patients and visitors, and we are therefore looking at

all the options available to us to find a solution.”

6.1.28 The provision of the replacement hospital parking and £500,000 funding to the Hospitals Trust to

help resolve a long standing local issue as part of the appeal proposals represent a very significant

planning benefit arising from the appeal scheme to which significant weight should be attached

when considering the advantages of the appeal proposals in the planning balance. The whole

hearted support from the Hospitals Trust no doubt reflects their concerns over the ability to fund

such improvements from the public purse, in the face of ever challenging NHS budgetary

constraints.

6.1.29 The delivery of affordable housing is seen as a significant benefit arising from the scheme and is

wholly consistent with the Council’s adopted policy for the Borough. The appeal proposals will

provide for much-needed market and affordable housing. Not only will this address the



56

Government’s objectives in terms of boosting the economy and significantly boosting the supply of

housing, it also performs an important social function in meeting today the housing needs of the

locality.

6) Do the Reasons for Refusal provide a credible basis for refusing planning permission?

6.1.30 The Council have, created a policy position where peculiarly the Phase I development will be

treated in policy terms through Policy SP8 as being “within the built urban area”, but land wholly

enclosed by it and between it and the Town more generally is treated as open countryside, this

notwithstanding the Council’s own landscape analysis which confirms the site’s urban influence and

residential setting. This seems to be a confused policy response to an application which the

Council’s own Officers acknowledge constitutes sustainable development, and is a conclusion which

no part of the Reasons for Refusal contradict.

6.1.31 Strategic Policy 2 confirms that development will be directed towards the most sustainable locations

in accordance with a settlement hierarchy which Burton upon Trent sits atop. There is nothing, per

se, within this policy proposition that the appeal proposals conflict with. The Site falls squarely

within the new urban context of Burton upon Trent, and Burton is at the top of the settlement

hierarchy. The application site is acknowledged by the Council as being a sustainable location and

was similarly concluded to be a sustainable site in the Secretary of State’s assessment of the Phase

1 proposals. The sole “conflict”, which arises is the degree to which the site is viewed as falling

within the urban settlement. Whilst as a matter of fact, the Site falls beyond the settlement

boundary as defined by the Local Plan, in the context of the merits of the appeal when considered

against the material considerations of the Framework as a whole, then the weight to be attached to

that part Strategic Policy 2 is considered minimal, the more important element being that the

proposals comply with the clear thrust of the Settlement Hierarchy being on land within the urban

settlement of Burton, and Burton being the main focus for new development within the Borough.

6.1.32 Strategic Policy 4 confirms that in addition to the allocated sites, the Council need to identify a

minimum requirement of 1,359 dwellings within the Main Towns of Burton and Uttoxeter. Again,

as with Strategic Policy 2, the only alleged conflict with this specific aspect of the appeal proposals

is whether or not the site falls within the defined settlement boundary. That is, there is no alleged

breach or conflict with the housing requirement number, nor is it alleged that the grant of consent

would somehow undermine the distribution strategy, it is simply a “technical” breach related to

whether the appeal site is viewed as forming part of Burton urban area, or the open countryside.



57

For the reasons set out in relation to SP2 above, the weight to be attached to this conflict and that

with SP8 should be minimal, notwithstanding the recent adoption of the Local Plan.

7) Would any material harm be caused by the grant of planning permission?

6.1.33 There is a significant failure on the part of the Council to have identified any harm which would

arise from the grant of planning in their Reasons for Refusal. Given the substantial agreement

reached on the technical planning and sustainability merits of the application/appeal, which is fairly

reflected in the Officer’s report to Planning Committee, it is unsurprising that no material harm

could be identified.

6.2 Conclusions

6.2.1 It is concluded that the development is sustainably located and is in itself sustainable, two points

which do not appear challenged by the Reasons for Refusal or the Council’s professional Planning

Officer’s report to Planning Committee. There are no technical objections or impediments to the

appeal scheme’s delivery. There are no adverse impacts of granting planning permission identified

by the Council which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the numerous and significant

benefits arising. When assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole, the

Framework being a material consideration in this case, the planning balance is clearly in favour of

the grant of consent. No other specific policies of the Framework indicate development should be

restricted. It is concluded that, notwithstanding the Plan’s recent adoption, the Local Plan’s

identification of the site as falling in ‘open countryside’ should carry only limited weight given the

particular circumstances of this land and its relationship to the earlier ‘Phase I’ approved site.

6.2.2 In the light of all the above, it is concluded that the proposals constitute sustainable development,

and the Inspector is invited to allow the appeal.