QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
PLANNING COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
COOPER ESTATES STRATEGIC LAND LIMITED |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
ROYAL TUNBRIDGE WELLS BOROUGH COUNCIL |
Defendant |
____________________
Mr William Upton (instructed by Messrs Sharpe Pritchard) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 13 December 2016
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY :
The Council's Plans: the Core Strategy
"5.10 Core Policy 1 therefore prioritises the allocation of sites on previously developed land located within the existing Limits to Built Development (LBD). The current extent of the LBDs, as defined by the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 is shown on the adopted Proposals Map, but the LBDs will be reviewed during preparation of the Allocations DPD. On the basis of currently known land availability (and making no allowance for windfall development – see paragraph 5.18 further) it will also be necessary to allocate greenfield sites and/or sites outside the existing LBD in order to maintain a sufficient supply of deliverable and developable land to accommodate the Borough's identified development needs. Core Policy 1 therefore allows for allocations on both previously developed and greenfield land and it will be necessary for the Allocations and Town Centres Area Action Plan DPDs to consider both sources.
Greenfield Sites outside the existing Limits to Built Development
5.11 Where it is necessary to draw on greenfield sites they will only be allocated where they are adjacent to the main urban area or the small rural towns and their allocation is required to meet the Borough's identified needs for development."
"a review of land within that category will be conducted in parallel with the preparation of the Allocations Development Plan to ensure that Green Belt boundaries will endure thereafter until 2031."
"5.27 However, the South East Plan states, in the supporting text to Policy AOSR8: Tonbridge/Tunbridge Wells Hub, that "there may be a need for small scale Green Belt review at Tunbridge Wells" in order to be able to accommodate sufficient development here to support its Regional Hub status. This is capable of being an exceptional circumstance for a review of the inner boundaries of the Green Belt (PPG2 paragraphs 2.6-2.7). Any release of land from the Green Belt following a review would be dependent on there being no suitable non-Green Belt sites available to support the requirements of the Regional Hub. The Borough Council would then consider the release of sites within the Green Belt that are adjacent to the Limits to the Built Development (LBD) of Royal Tunbridge Wells and Southborough where this would least compromise the purposes of the Green Belt.
5.28 On the basis of currently known land availability, as set out in the SHLAA 2009, there may be no need to release Green Belt sites for development during the period to 2026. However, in parallel with the preparation of the Allocations DPD a review will be undertaken of the adequacy or otherwise of the stock of safeguarded non-Green Belt land outside the LBD, designated as Rural Fringe in previous Local Plans. This is because compliance with PPG2 requires there to be a sufficient stock of developable Rural Fringe sites to permit housing development to continue in 2026-31 at the same annual rate as in 2006-26 without further review of the Green Belt. This review of Rural Fringe sites will not take place at locations other than Royal Tunbridge Wells and Southborough."
"5.33 As indicated at paragraphs 5.27-5.28 above, the Borough Council will retain a stock of safeguarded land reserved as Rural Fringe to extend beyond the Plan period to 2031. The existing Rural Fringe sites were not excluded from consideration in the first SHLAA and their relative merits (including their five-year deliverability and 10 year deliverability) will need to be considered against those of other candidate sites in the process of preparing the Allocations DPD and Town Centres Areas Action Plan DPD. In accordance with Core Policy 1: Delivery of Development, Rural Fringe sites, like other sites outside the LBD, will not be released unless they are allocated in DPD.
5.34 If it is necessary to allocate existing Rural Fringe sites, the SHLAA, together with the Landscape Character Assessment and Capacity Study 2009, will help identify suitable areas for designation as replacement Rural Fringe sites through the Allocations DPD."
(SHLAA is the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment).
The Council's plans: the Site Allocation Plan
"This Site Allocations DPD has been prepared in order to allocate sites to accommodate the level of growth identified within the adopted Core Strategy 2010 and the evidence base that supports it. The Local Planning Authority has not carried out new evidence in relation to objectively assessed housing needs, Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment or Strategic Housing Market Assessment. These documents will all be reviewed as part of the Core Strategy Review (Local Plan). A commitment has been made within the Local Development Scheme to review the existing Core Strategy, and at that time the overall level and distribution of growth for the Borough will be reassessed in light of updated evidence.
Additionally, this Site Allocations DPD has not carried out a review of the Green Belt; it has reviewed the suitability and capacity of the existing Rural Fringe Sites (safeguarded land) at Royal Tunbridge Wells for meeting the identified housing need during the Plan period, where it cannot be met on previously developed land within the Limits to Built Development of Royal Tunbridge Wells and Southborough."
The public examination: the framework
The public examination: the facts
"29. It is also the case that sites allocated for a C3 residential use in the SADPD are likely to be suitable for elderly accommodation, either C2 use or C3 elderly housing that provides self-contained accommodation and an associated relatively low level of support such as a resident warden and a communal meeting area. Further provision may therefore come from this source.
30. The new Local Plan that will replace the Core Strategy will be informed by an updated SHMA, which will be required to specify a development requirement for housing to serve the elderly population. The housing target in the new Local Plan will differentiate between standard C3 dwellings and those specifically providing accommodation for the elderly. It will therefore be likely that the new Local Plan will allocate sites delivering either C2 accommodation or more general elderly housing."
The Inspector's Report
He continued:
"The adopted CS identifies the overall economic, social and environmental objectives for the borough and the amount, type and broad location of development needed to fulfil these objectives that the SADPD conform to the adopted CS, a CS which preceded the National Planning Policy Framework by nearly two years. However, in the years that have passed since its adoption, new evidence has arisen and new policies have been articulated which suggest additional needs and new directions of travel, which are proposed to be met by a replacement Local Plan (rLP) which is also under active preparation."
"18. Further to representations focussed on the delivery of land for housing development and for provision of the elderly, I have also considered whether the nature of the changes in evidence and policy that have taken place since 2010 mean that the SALP should allocate additional land that would have the effect of materially modifying the strategy in the adopted CS, or alternatively be withdrawn. However, having regard to the Wokingham judgment (and the recent finding in the Court of Appeal on the Tandridge case which confirms the correct approach) there is no basis in law for me to consider this matter further.
19. I have not considered any additional land for allocation (omission sites) over and above that proposed to be allocated in the SALP, on the basis that the SALP meets the land requirements of the CS and there have been no circumstances in which my consideration of individual proposed site allocations in the remainder of this report have led to a shortfall of land against the requirement set out in the CS."
"21. The SALP has not proposed a review of the Metropolitan Green Belt boundary engirdling Royal Tunbridge Wells and Southborough, because in the Council's view, the land requirements for those settlements that cannot be met within the existing LBD, can be met when land is allocated from within rural fringe sites (a long term reserve of safeguarded land located between the LBD and the Metropolitan Green Belt Boundary).
22. Having taken this position into account, together with paragraph 83 of the NPPF, I am satisfied that the CS housing land requirement can be met from land within the LBD and land proposed to be allocated from within the rural fringe sites. In reaching this position, I have taken account of the proposed allocations in Royal Tunbridge Wells and Southborough, and in the rural fringe. Subject to matters of detail reported on further below, I find that these allocations are sound. On this basis, there is not a shortfall of allocated and deliverable land in Royal Tunbridge Wells and Southborough and the rural fringe. It follows that I do not accept a need to allocate any land currently in the Green Belt.
23. In reaching this view I have considered whether an argued shortage of or lack of diversity in housing and the ageing population is capable of constituting the exceptional circumstances necessary to trigger an alteration to the Green Belt boundary but again observe that the role of the SALP in relation to the adopted CS means that I should not recommend the allocation of land in the Green Belt when this direction has not been sought to the CS.
24. It follows that I agree the approach that the SALP has taken to the Metropolitan Green Belt and I have not recommended that any land currently within the Green Belt should be allocated.
"58. For reasons set out in paragraph 21-24 above I consider that the Council has taken an appropriate approach to the allocation of land in the rural fringe. It follows that the proposed allocations in this part of the SALP are sound. The CS does not support and no justified case has been made for the allocation of land in the Green Belt."
Ground 1: the approach to C2 homes for the elderly
Ground 2: the approach to removing land from the Green Belt
Ground 3: dealing with evidence of need arising after 2010
Conclusion